July 06, 2005
Baptizin' & Circumcisin'
I've been reading lots of scripture over the last few days about covenants, circumicisions, and baptism, but to be honest I don't really see the connection in scripture. How did baptism get to be a sign of the covenant? I'd be interested in historical answers to this question as well as biblical ones.
That's one question. Another and I think more foundational one is about the nature of "signs and seals". As I understand it, a Presbyterian would tell me that (infant) baptism is much more than a symbol, that something real is happening, although most would say the child is not being saved. So it's more than a dedication, but less than salvation.
The same is true of communion, I guess -- more than a memory, but less than transubstantiation. I think I understand the concept better as it applies to communion than to baptism.
A final question, for now: is baptism always the same word in the Greek New Testament? Or is there a semantic way to tell the difference between the baptism of the Spirit and water baptism? I'm wondering this especially in regard to mentions of baptism in the epistles like Eph. 4:5 and I Cor. 12:13.
And while we're on the subject, what do you make of I Corinthians 15:29?
So, any thoughts? Good articles or books? (I'd especially be interested if church fathers addressed the issue, which I'm sure they did).
Posted by tom at July 6, 2005 10:38 AM | TrackBack
Thanks for the comment, Kevin. I'll leave you and Maphet to duke it out on this one. :)
Posted by: tom at July 15, 2005 10:39 AMI've never bee satisfied with the position that Paul's point in I Corinthians 15:29 was merely rhetorical. Basically, this is the claim that Paul is trying to prove an essential tenet of the faith by an appeal to adiaphora. However, the conclusion of an argument can be no more binding than any of its premises. Rather than arguing from an isolated Corinthian practice, I believe that Paul is making, or at least alluding to, the same theological point that he makes in Romans 6:3,4. For what it's worth, I wrote something about this last October over here.
Posted by: Kevin at July 15, 2005 04:17 AMThank you very much, Maphet. Calvin's book 4 is, as we discussed, already on my reading list. I was hoping when I posted that you would respond.
Posted by: tom at July 11, 2005 12:58 PMSorry about the late response. Here are a couple quick replies before I have to go be responsible again.
First, to my memory, baptism is usually the same word in the Greek, whether referring to baptism "of the spirit" or "of water."
Re: I Cor. 15:29 - really, no one knows what that is about. The best guess I've read is that Paul was simply making a rhetorical, rather than a theological point. The theological concern was the resurrection of the dead. Paul was appealing to one of the Corinthians' practices to prove his point, rather than passing judgment on the practice per se.
As for books, there's been so much written, its hard to narrow it down to one or two. I'm kind of on a Calvin kick, so I'll recommend his Institutes for now - his section on baptism was actually quite helpful to read before we baptized Samuel and would address many of your questions.
As for history, I'd argue that baptism was a much bigger deal in the early church than it is now and was viewed in both salvific and ecclesiastical perspectives. Justin Martyr, for example, directly linked baptism to the rebirth of John 3. However, I don't think they argued for why baptism was the means of entrance into the covenant community as much as they simply assumed it. For more reading, check out ccel.org and look up Tertullian, Justin Martyr, the Didache, and Hippolytus (if he's there).
Posted by: maphet at July 11, 2005 10:44 AM