Water Cannons

There are worship wars in the church today...what style is Biblical, what instruments should be used, should only hymns be sung or only contemporary music used? What is more relevant, etc. Thankfully at Oak Mountain we have been spared such battles. However, water wars are another matter altogether. By God's providence, Oak Mountain is a Presbyterian Church placed smack-dab in the middle of one of the most staunchly Baptist strong-holds in the country...not that there's anything wrong with that! For the most part evangelical Baptists and evangelical Presbyterians agree on most things.

One of the things that is hotly debated, however, is baptism...the mode and the subjects of baptism. Baptists assert that the only subjects of Baptism are people who profess faith in Jesus Christ and the only Biblical mode is immersion. Presbyterians believe that people who profess faith in Jesus Christ AND THEIR CHILDREN are the proper subjects of baptism and the truly Biblical mode is sprinkling.

Let me say that no one's eternal destiny depends on where you come down on this issue. Let me also say, however, that I do believe there are huge practical implications and even "blessings of grace" involved in where we stand on this doctrine. The only thing that I really get bothered by in this discussion is thoughtless blather that doesn't even take the debate to Scripture. Tradition alone is not where the debate should take place...for any Christ-follower the discussion must take place at a Biblical/Theological level.

So, for those of you who are desiring some real substance to the debate, let me offer what I feel are some important passages to consider:

I would always begin with Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul basically equates circumcision and baptism (which then begs the question of who the proper subjects of baptism are because circumcision was applied to 8 day old male infants as well as adult men who would convert to Judaism);

Then I would turn to Acts 2:38-39, where ALL the Jews at Pentecost understood the Covenant language of baptism as referring to Abraham and circumcision and children of believers; children Peter even expressly refers to. No Jew present could fail to make the connection between Genesis 17 and the baptism that Peter is talking about in Acts 2; Genesis 17, which alongside Romans 4:11, answers the Baptist objection that baptism is an outward sign of an already inwardly present faith. We know that saving faith that brings a right relationship with God could NOT be present when circumcision was applied to an infant...yet it WAS still the sign of faith and the righteousness that comes by faith...and was commanded by God to be applied to the infant!

Then I would refer you to Ezekiel 36:24-32 as a passage that brings the symbolism of both circumcision and baptism together.

Finally, I would also say that the mode of SPRINKLING is present in the statements made in Hebews 9:13,19,21, Hebrews 10:22, Hebrews 11:28, Hebrews 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2.

In my mind, especially in light of Acts 2:38-39, NO LONGER INCLUDING CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS IN THE COVENANT SIGN OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT COMES BY FAITH would be a change among God's people so incredibly dramatic, that a change of such magnitude would have to be PLAINLY AND CLEARLY taught. It is NOT clearly taught in the New Testament. Therefore, apart from such clear teaching, the evidence is clearly on the side of infant baptism continuing the Biblical tradition of infants of believers being recipients of the sign of grace. I would say to my Baptistic friends (and they ARE friends and fellow family members in Christ!), I don't need to show you where infant baptism is taught in a verse; rather, you would need to show me clearly that the covenant sign applied to children of believers has ceased.

Happy studying!

History of Baptism

Don't think for a minute that I'm some crazed Presbyterian that majors on the minors! Its just that so many of the folk who visit our church come from a baptistic background and this is an important question for them. There are MANY more important issues to blog about, and I'll go to those soon. Ironically, it is not we Presbyterians who get hung up on baptism, it tends to be the Baptists. I have received numerous phone calls from people who have had to leave town and look for another church due to a job change. Often there is no PCA church in the town and the most Biblically-based church is Baptist. No problem. Except that there has often been a problem for the family joining the church when they are told that their Presbyterian baptism didn't count! They weren't immersed, so they weren't baptized, so they can't join the church unless they are baptized by immersion! We don't ever tell anyone they need to be baptized in order to join our church unless they've never been baptized. So, there you go. Let's think for a minute about Church History...now its not as strong as the Biblical argument, obviously, but we at least need to consider that God is sovereign and is at work through His Church through the ages. For the first 1000 years or so, there only was one recognized organizational center to the church...the Roman church. The church of Rome baptizes infants. In 1054 the Great Schism occurred between the East and the West...the Eastern Church, the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, etc) broke off from the Western Church over the place of authority (Rome or Constantinople), the date of Easter (!!!), and other issues. The Orthodox Church also baptizes infants. Those two churches remained until 1517, when, with Luther's 95 Theses, the Reformation began. Luther's followers became, of course, the Lutheran church...and they also baptize infants. Soon after, John Calvin wrote his Institutes, and the Reformed churches began...Presbyterians baptize infants following Calvin's teaching of Scripture. Only AFTER this, did the Anabaptists arise (the word means baptize again), saying that Luther and Calvin didn't Reform enough and were carrying Catholic baggage, ie, infant baptism. MOST of the churches DISAGREED with the Anabaptists. The Reformation spread to England and the Anglican church was born...and THEY baptize infants. John Wesley and others began the Methodist Church in England, and they too baptize infants. In America, the Episcopal Church was started, and THEY also baptize infants. What is clear is that the majority view through ALL of Church History is Infant Baptism. The reason why so many American Evangelicals struggle with baptism is because Americans think the Baptist tradition is the historical majority position. We naturally think that because the Baptists are the largest denomination in America, along with other large Baptistic denominations (non-Baptist, but still practicing believer, adult immersion). But if you step outside of your American Heritage, which is hard for Americans to do, you see a different story and perspective...and that perspective is infant baptism practiced in the churches.

Jesus' Baptism

I've been asked many times in our New Members' Class, "If Jesus was immersed, then shouldn't we be immersed as well?" Let me make a couple comments here. First, Jesus' baptism, ironically and amazingly, was NOT Christian baptism! Paul makes this very clear when he meets up with the converts in Ephesus as recorded in Acts 19. In Acts 19:3 the converts said they were baptized into John's baptism which Paul states in v4 was a baptism of repentance. So, in v5 they then received the baptism into Jesus, Christian baptism. But that is not the real point...the real issue is the question as to whether Jesus was immersed even in John's baptism. What leads people to the conclusion that he was is the use of the prepositions in the Gospel accounts. In Matthew 3:16 we read that when Jesus was baptized, he went up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descend upon Him. Many conclude that this proves immersion...Jesus went under the water, then came up from the water. But it could just as easily mean that He walked down into the water from the bank with John, was baptized by pouring or sprinkling (as is often portrayed in most art!), then walked out from the water onto the bank (thus, "went up from the water") and then, on the bank of the river, the Spirit descended upon Him. This carries even more weight when we notice that the text tells us Jesus came up FROM the water...if Matthew was trying to tell us Jesus was immersed, he could have been more clear. Because if you simply arise from UNDER the water, you are still IN the water. But Matthew tells us that Jesus "went up from the water", that is, He walked out of it. The greek preposition is a preposition of motion, meaning to move away from, expressing the idea of separation. If Jesus was immersed and Matthew simply means Jesus came up from being immersed, this is not the best preposition to use. It is as if Matthew said, Jesus walked up out of the water onto the bank, and the Spirit descended upon Him. The baptism of Jesus says nothing about immersion.

Being Presbyterian in a Baptist World

Its really interesting pastoring a Presbyterian church in an area where 50-60 percent of our visitors seem to come from a Baptist background. First of all let me say that I am so thankful for God for my Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ. Usually, their zeal and passion for outreach puts us Presbyterians to shame. Having said that, I often find that the first questions I am asked by visitors are, "Why do you guys baptize infants?" And, "Why don't you guys immerse?" Since I'm asked this question so often, I thought I'd just put up my initial response on the blog...and I can always come back and add to it later. First, the issue of baptism comes down ultimately to the issue how we form doctrinal beliefs. Many people feel that there must be a particular verse that clearly reveals a doctrine as obvious before they'll believe it...that's unfortunate. If that were how doctrine is defined, we wouldn't be able to prove the Trinity...that God is One God who exists in Three Distinct Persons. As is the case for the Trinity, so it is for baptism. We don't look for proof-texts, but rather we look at the entire counsel of God and look for themes that are repeated over and over. When it comes to baptism, we don't just look for individual verses, nor do we just consider the New Testament! We must look at the entire Bible to arrive at our theology. When we look at the entire Bible, one thing becomes clear...it is impossible to understand New Testament doctrine without also being familiar with Old Testament theology. As a matter of fact, almost all of the New Testament is either an Old Testament direct quotation, or an Old Testament reference or flows out of a theme covered in the Old Testament. When it comes to baptism, even the New Testament makes it clear that we can not understand baptism unless we understand Old Testament circumcision. If you ARE one of those people who are looking for a verse, check out Colossians 2:11-12. In those verses Paul writes, in effect, that we have been circumcised by being baptized! He equates circumcision and baptism! I have a lot more to write down...but gotta play car-pool dad.

Baptism part 2

So, if, as Paul clearly teaches in Colossians 2, that we are circumcised thru being baptized, what do we know about circumcision. We need to go to Genesis 17 where God establishes His covenant through Abraham. God says He will make a covenant with Abraham and with His descendents after him, to be Abraham's God and the God of his offspring as well. Then God says that Abraham's part of the covenant is to believe God's promise and be circumcised AND to circumcise his male children 8 days old as well. Now, what is really amazing about this is that Paul, looking back to Gen 17 in Romans 4:11, says that circumcision was the sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith! One of the points the Baptistic tradition makes is that baptism is an outward sign of an inward faith...that is CLOSE to what I would say...but to put it a little differently, baptism is a sign of the gift of righteousness that is given to those who don't hope in their own righteousness but receive an alien righteousness from Christ that is by faith. What's interesting about all this is that God says this sign of the righteousness that comes by faith is to be applied to 8 day old male infants who couldn't possibly have the faith that brings them the alien righteousness that comes by faith!! And when we DO come to the New Testament, we need to realize that the early church was Jewish and came to the New Testament with a Jewish understanding flowing from the Old Testament Scriptures. So, in Acts 2:38-39, after his Pentecost sermon, Peter, when asked by the crowd what they should do, said "Repent and be baptized." And THEN he adds, "For the promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN..." There is only one way the listeners, which were ENTIRELY Jewish (Acts 2:5), would hear Peter's words. They'd say, "Well, yeah. That's how it has ALWAYS been! The covenant promises have ALWAYS been for us and for our children! God had always promised to be a God to us and to our children. And God has always given the sign of the righteousness that is by faith to not only believing adults, but to the children of believers as well. So, far, then, we have learned that circumcision and baptism are related to each other in the closest possible way...and that they both pointed to the same thing...the righteousness that comes by faith. And now we've learned that the SUBJECTS of circumcision were both believing made adults and the male children of believing parents. Now, in light of all this, the burden of proof concerning the baptism of children is not even on Presbyterians! The burden of proof is on the baptistic tradition that says, after over 2000 years of Old Testament church history, the children of believers are no longer included in the covenant community or heirs to the covenant promises. The problem for them is such proof does not exist and evidence that the continuity with the Old Testament doctrine of circumcision continues through baptism. If 1st century Jewish parents were to believe that only believers were to receive the sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith, there would have to be CLEAR EVIDENCE of that...and there is none. Just because the New Testament records baptisms of people who seem to be adults and come to faith and then get baptized, it doesn't mean children are NOT to be baptized. That is simply an argument from silence and is no argument at all. Let this percolate a bit, and I'll write some more later.