The word regeneration is often used to describe conversion, but in Scripture it is understood as a process. God calls, cleanses, instructs, clothes, feeds and commissions us. I believe this fact is, however, abused by paedobaptists, who seem to me to be prone to throw the actual “watershed” of conversion out with their baby bath water.
“If the Federal Vision got baptism right, they would be demonstrating the biblical dominion pattern in every individual’s life.”
Matt Caslow posted some thinking man’s questions concerning Bully’s broadband brand of credobaptism. Matt, I hope these answers help you understand my assertions. Happy to discuss further. I’ll soon be posting a page at the top of the blog with baptism links.
More on baptism. Jane Dunsworth has posted some well-thought-out strikes and I figure it’s worth posting my parries here.
Doug Wilson writes:
“The debate in the early church was not whether the Jews should stop circumcising their sons; it was whether the Gentiles had to start. The decision of the Jerusalem council was not that individual Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. If circumcision had been required of them, it would have obligated them to live as Jews under the Mosaic law — which included the circumcision of all subsequent generations. Circumcision was not being waived for individual Gentiles; circumcision was being waived for Gentiles and their seed. So the Christian church did not insist that Gentiles circumcise their infants — not because they were infants, but because they were Gentile infants” (To a Thousand Generations, pp. 68-69).
Since there is no ex-plicit proof of infant baptism, Pastor Wilson’s self-stated, continuing goal here is to find im-plicit proof. My goal in the following is to show that not only do circumcision and baptism not correspond, but also that the solution to the dispute in this passage he refers to is given in the passage, leaving no room for an im-plicit reference to infant baptism.
Doug Wilson writes:
“This objection misses the point that Peter is making. The issue with Cornelius and his household was not whether they were old enough to receive water baptism, but whether they were Jewish enough. If this household had contained an infant, the members of the ‘circumcision’ who were there would not have objected to baptism on the grounds of infancy, but rather because the infant was Gentile and uncircumcised” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 55).
Certainly, the issue was whether Gentiles should be baptized, but it was never a pitting of circumcision against baptism. They understood that circumcision was a beginning and baptism was a new beginning. Circumcision was replaced not by baptism but by the death of Christ, which united Jew and Gentile. Jesus tore down that wall, and paedobaptism unwittingly puts it up again. Circumcision marked out flesh as a plot of Land. That is entirely done with. Spirit water overflows all human barriers, it wipes out every distinction with a new one – Repentance and Faith.
Doug Wilson writes:
“It is of course true that real religion is concerned with the state of the heart, and not with whether a man has jumped through all the right ceremonial hoops. When a man believes the covenant promise he points away from himself . . . To look away from the heart to an objective Christ is not to neglect the heart; to look away in this fashion is the only way to be justified and put right with God” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 46).
This is an excellent statement. It’s perfect fruit for a pie but Pastor Wilson is sticking it in a casserole.
Uri Brito asked me once how I can possibly believe that the church is central, and simultaneously be a baptist. Does being a baptistic fan of Jordan, Leithart and Wilson necessarily involve an element of schizophrenia? You might be interested to know how Federal Vision looks from where I stand. If not, just humour me.
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!”
Philippians 3:2 (NKJV)
Jeff Meyers copped flak for his take on the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. He says the tax collector was justified for his Covenant faithfulness, and the Pharisee was not. Was it not the Pharisee who was faithful? And, either way, is this not justification by works? Has Jeff got night and day around the wrong way?
Another quote from Regis Debray’s God: An Itinerary, and then some comments.
He’s a staunch atheist so I really shouldn’t be enjoying this book. What a mind. He’s like James Jordan’s evil twin. He has some wonderful observations despite his lack of the unifying paradigm of faith to understand their true meanings. He alternately makes me want to scream and sing.
Debray mistakenly interprets the adjustments made by God in the economy of His people throughout history as the inventions of men, yet without the constraints of errant tradition, he often hits the nail on the head. All he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but he is consistently thought-provoking.
Under the title Baptism working against you…, my Presbyterian friend Uri Brito wrote:
“Reprobation is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to the idea of apostasy. Apostasy is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to baptism. In baptism, apostates find their worst nightmare. It is better to be baptized by a cult (which is an invalid baptism to begin with) than to be baptized by an orthodox Trinitarian church. The problem for the apostate with the latter baptism, is that they incur the full wrath of the waters. As Leithart writes: ‘Their baptisms are effective in being witnesses against them.’ Baptized apostates will receive what the Egyptian army received.”
How can an involuntary baptism be a witness against anyone? If I am in a coma for some reason on my wedding day and the best man has to make the vows for me, what sort of case are the witnesses going to have if I break those vows because I feel like I have woken up with Leah instead of Rachel?
Bible Matrix blog
