There is only One God-parent
“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…” (1 Corinthians 10:1-2)
All Israel was baptized through the sea, including the infants. But Christians who practice infant baptism confuse the corporate picture with the personal.
After all, not all individual members of the nation of Israel were circumcised as individuals, but as a national “body” they were. As a nation, they were sanctified by the shedding of blood. As a nation, they pictured the coming Christ.
Israelite females could not be circumcised because the Covenant head is male. They could not picture personally what Israel pictured as a whole.
Just so, the greater maturity of the Church as a body, which is indeed a new baptized nation, is reflected in the personal baptism of those who respond to the Christ who came.
Infants cannot be baptized because they cannot respond, i.e. they cannot picture as individuals the more mature, more glorious state of the New Covenant body, the warrior Bride.
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:36-39)
The promise was for their children, but we never see this enacted in Scripture by any individual infant’s baptism.
Circumcision was by proxy — the God-parent. Circumcision was the responsibility of the Father, and it pleased Him to bruise His Son (Isaiah 53:10). It was a rite that pictured the Father/Son act of Calvary. After the Ascension, it became obsolete.
But there is no baptism by proxy. The Bride responds to the Bridegroom’s call, (notice the word “call” in the passage from Acts) and witnesses to her salvation in song. Baptism is not a rite that pictures Father/Son initiative but the Spirit-response. Notice the order of events: ”Cut to the heart” (blood); repentance (mortification); baptism (water); Spirit (resurrection). Peter’s words brought forth a response.
FACT: The only God-parent in the New Covenant is God the Father. And the only proxy is God the Son.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Mike,
Greetings in Christ, and best wishes to you!
I started to write a point by point response, but I decided that I don’t think your post really makes any sense. You’re jumping around from assertion to assertion — while saying infants cannot be baptized, you note that they all were, in Moses. You say infants can’t respond, but Psalm 22 says they trust in God from the beginning. Therefore, yes, as individuals they do indeed respond as part of the warrior bride (even though . . . the bride is not me, you, her, and him, but rather . . . she is The Bride corporately.)
Would love to tease this out more if/when I have time. Love your blog, but/and thought I oughtta just respond with a friendly “nuh-uh”.
All for now,
Blessings in Christ,
Doug Roorda
May 27th, 2010 at 1:12 am
Mike:
I’m thoroughly enjoying Totus Christus and plan to recommend it to friends. That said, I was surprised to read the post above and had to re-read it to make sure you weren’t quoting another blogger.
Initially, I read the remarks above in light of Totus Christus. There you demonstrates such a keen understanding and application of the covenant that the tenuous distinction between personal and corporate mapped out in your post seems logically inconsistent.
Can anyone know God independent of the whole? Is there such a thing as a “personal relationship,” apart from the Body? If there is, what does this do to Calvin’s affirmation that “We cannot have God as our Father without the Church as our Mother?”
Again, thanks for your work. Enjoying it immensely. Every blessing.
Doug
May 27th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Hi Doug
I love friendly nuh-uhs! and a good debate.
My point was that in the Covenant people of the Old Testament, not every individual bore the Covenant sign. So it is with the New. Appealing to the Old Testament over the New for evidence of infant baptism is a bit desperate. There is a gent in Britain who finds evidence for it in Jeremiah, but I will tackle that in another post.
Cheers,
Mike
May 27th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Hi Doug S.
Two Dougs replied. Two witnesses.
There’s a couple of pages towards the end where I apply the matrix pattern to baptism. But I don’t think it will make total sense without having read most of the book, especially the parts on Acts and Revelation.
To understand my basic biblical theological reasoning, here’s a good place to start: (some links):
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/12/comparing-apples-with-apples/
There are also some extra BT thoughts here:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/09/28/protesting-the-draft/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/29/healing-in-his-tassels/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/09/25/the-acid-test/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/11/23/wrath-of-the-waters/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/01/12/baptism-of-fire/
Maybe I should put a book together to get all this stuff in one place. Might make it an easier target, too!
I could be wrong, but even if I am, these are certainly questions that require some answers. If I am wrong, discussion will only sharpen our understanding of the truth.
Regarding Calvin’s statement, I agree wholeheartedly. But surely this views the church more in the way Rome does, an institution wholly governed by men, rather than a body being built by the Spirit? Each local body pictures, and is a part of, the whole. But each local body, including Rome despite her protests, is not the whole.
Yes, the head and the body go through the pattern. But the head is the head and the body is the body. The head approaches the throne and the theme is blood. When Christ ascended as the firstfruits lamb, the bloodline of Abraham was ended. The Messianic line became entirely Spirit. When the firstfruits church approached the throne, the theme was water, the crystal sea. Although we find blood and water in both head and body, because each approach follows the pattern, in the greater picture, it is the bloody head and the baptized body. Hope this makes sense. It is multi-layered which makes things a little tricky. More tricky than Russian dolls. I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell I am following the same logic as elsewhere. Happy to discuss anything, of course.
Thanks for posting, Doug.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:05 am
I forgot this one, which highlights credo-baptism’s effect on culture as a “death to heredity”:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/02/03/an-atheist-gets-baptism/
May 27th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Thanks Mike. I’m still in the nuh-uh category but can’t give you a detailed post as to why right now. I look forward to continuing though.
One thought – if “appealing to the Old Testament over the New for evidence of infant baptism is a bit desperate” shouldn’t you send that complaint to Paul? Seems like he’s pretty comfortable applying the individual baptism to everyone, and saying it’s the same for the Corinthians.
One would be tempted to say “but Paul isn’t really talking about baptism” (anyway I was, in a spirit of bonhomie and whatnot) – but that wouldn’t be right; he is talking about baptism.
More later perhaps. In the meantime, keep up the good work!
Blessings in Christ,
Doug Roorda
May 28th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Doug
Most of my arguments for credo-baptism come from the Old Testament. But I’m not using the Old Testament to justify a practice that’s not in the new. Peter’s “every one of you” applies to his audience of “men and brethren.” We know from other verses that women, too, were baptized. We also know that baptism always followed repentance.
The promise was for those men and their children: one generation. Jesus told the women they should weep for their children: one generation. The Covenant blessings and curses were enacted gradually upon that one generation until Judah was no more. As many as God called were saved. Then the call to Jews (as Jews) was over.
May 29th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Mike,
Hm, I see your point as consistent with your overall take on things, but I don’t see it as inconsistent with mine.(It doesn’t relate to my previous questions in a way that is clear or obvious to me, but maybe it wasn’t intended to, or maybe it’s deeper under the surface than I can see.)
I’ll give it a rest for now while I try to understand your thinking more.
Blessings in Christ,
Doug Roorda
September 21st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
http://reformedcrosswords.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/new-creation-via-baptism/
September 21st, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Thanks Michael
I checked it out. Good stuff, but I do maintain that an inward work precedes the outward. All the examples we have in the New Testament show that those baptized (Atonement/Conquest) were first cut to the heart (Passover/Division). Looking at Leviticus 1, the order is repentance, Spirit, laver:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/08/26/high-as-the-horses-bridles/
November 15th, 2010 at 5:01 am
Just a passing observation: your “system” doesn’t seem to have an opinion about what the church has historically taught and done about infant baptism. I certainly don’t want to push tradition over against what Scripture actually says/teaches, but at the same time it’s not something that should be ignored.
November 15th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Jared
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But besides the fact that there is no biblical warrant for God parents (unless you count a father circumcising his son), this typological argument came out of the matrix quite naturally. I wasn’t actually looking for evidence for credo-baptism.