Questions on Baptism

[Diane_Windsor]

I put this on my thread in GT concerning infant baptism, but no one responded *shrug* Some of this is going over my head, and I don't understand what this man means.

I found an interesting retraction* from a former Reformed Baptist who now believes in infant baptism. Here is what he wrote on why he was a Reformed Baptist:

"What I have to say next is critical to understand. I see four main reasons why I was a Reformed Baptist: 1) I was dispensational to some extreme in my thinking because of an abrogation of the Old Testament covenant in an extreme manner, 2) I studied the doctrine of the “covenant” from the New Testament backwards to the Old Testament, 3) I defined the “sign” of Baptism strictly as, “the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration,” and 4) I thought that the terms "salvation" and "new covenant" were coextensively the same thing."

Dr. McMahon immediately goes on to explain his four reasons, but some of this stuff is over my head, and I want to turn our discussion back to Scripture.

About point 1 Dr. McMahon wrote that "My 'Reformed Baptistic' theology, from a covenantal perspective, was dispensational – I could not escape this to some extent even though I did not see how this could possibly be."

I'm not sure how dispensational theology affects infant baptism.

I understand Point 2. Going on to Dr. McMahon's third point he wrote:

"The very ideas associated with the ordinance of baptism in the new covenant for me as a Baptist were different than one who believes in Covenantal Theology. This is a result of the manner in which I understood what “covenant” theology is all about. I was in error about my understanding of covenant theology. This again will be addressed in future articles."

I am unsure what Covenantal Theology is and how that relates to baptism. Can anybody help me understand this?

Regardless on what side of the aisle you stand on I think you gotta respect a man who retracts what he has believed and taught for 15 years because he believes that he was wrong!

Thanks,
Diane


*If you so desire you can read the entire retraction on the following site:
My Retraction: A 15 Year Reformed Baptist Turns Paedo-Baptist By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

 

[Jon_]

Covenant Theology is the original orthodox understanding of the relativity of the Bible as pertains to the covenant of grace. There are a number of departures between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, but the primary one is that in Dispensationalism, the Jews are covered by a covenant of works (sacrificial atonement: the law), and the Gentiles are covered by a covenant of grace (Jesus's sacrifice). This is not to say that Jews cannot come to Jesus because they can. But it does say that Old Testament saints and Jews under the law are not a part of the church. Dispensationalism teaches that the church began at Pentecost (there are divisions on this, whether it was Acts 2, 7, or 13), but because the Jews rejected Christ (Acts 13), the church became the body of the Gentiles.

Essentially, Dispensationalism divides the Word of God between the Jews and Gentiles. It teaches that God's Messianic promise to the Jews was not fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ and that Jesus's second coming and his millennial reign (all Dispensationalists are premillennial) will fulfill the Jewish Messianic prophecies. Until then, the Gentiles benefit from the covenant of grace in Jesus Christ, which the Jews have rejected.

Dispensationalism is very much a new theology (and it is a theology), founded by Brethren John Nelson Darby in England in the mid-19th century. Some Dispensationalists dispute this tracing of Dispensationalism back to Darby and indeed a lot of Dispensational thought today departs in no small ways from some of Darby's original ideas. It really took off in America with the publication of the original Scofield Reference Bible, which has been the de facto Bible reference for Dispensational hermeneutics and theology for a hundred years, although many modern Dispensationalists shy away from its "outdated" material.

The theology has suffered numerous divisions and professes a number of factions. Orthodox Dispensationalism (often referred to as "ultradispensationalism" now) has gone by the wayside and been revised a number of times to soften the distinctions drawn between the covenants of work and grace. At this time, Dispensationalism is somewhat suffering from an identity crisis with a number of heavy-hitters wavering on their positions regarding orthodox understanding.

Covenant Theology, on the other hand, teaches very simply and plainly that all men, both before and after Christ's work on the cross, are saved by faith in him. Abraham's faith in God as his Redeemer was a type of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. The Old Testament sacrifices were a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to come. The Jews were not saved by the act of sacrifice, they were saved by the redeeming faith that caused them to sacrifice. Covenant Theology makes no distinction between Jew or Gentile with regards to salvation. All are saved through the work of Jesus Christ and faith in him. Covenant Theology further teaches that Israel is a type of the church, meaning, anytime God is speaking to Israel or of Israel in the New or Old Testament, the same can be said to be true of the church (with some obvious exceptions). Here is where Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism depart very radically.

I should also point out that almost every Dispensationalist to the man is a four-point Calvinist. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, has been the unifying understanding of God's covenant of grace with man for all of orthodox Christianity (Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) since the founding of the church. Its roots can be traced all the way back to the earliest of known ante-Nicene fathers, including Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and of course, Justin Martyr, who did more to advance this issue and claim the Old Testament as a Christian book (in his correspondance with Tryppo the Jew) than anyone before him.

For the record, I am firmly convinced of the truth of Covenant Theology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Dmckay]

Actually, dispensationalism IS NOT a theology, but a principal of hermeneutics, or Biblical interpretation. It basically says that G-d always saves by grace according to faith, but that the manifestation or practice of that faith may be different in different times. Abraham believed G-d and it was counted unto him for righteousness' sake. Because of a lack of faithful living according to the promise, the Law of Moses was added to the Promise to act as a schoolmaster to show them their need for Christ.

A dispensational hermeneutic should not affect a practice of infant baptism. Baptism is an act of obedience and identification of the believer with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Infant baptism is NOT Believer's Baptism. Your ident box shows a Baptist Bible, you should know this as a basic Baptist teaching.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

A dispensational hermeneutic should not affect a practice of infant baptism. Baptism is an act of obedience and identification of the believer with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Infant baptism is NOT Believer's Baptism. Your ident box shows a Baptist Bible, you should know this as a basic Baptist teaching.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my questions concerning Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's retraction.

Diane

 

[Radagast]

...I am unsure what Covenantal Theology is and how that relates to baptism. Can anybody help me understand this?...

The idea of the OLD COVENANT with circumcision (which included infants), and the NEW COVENANT with baptism. See e.g. Colossians 2:11-12:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

-- Radagast

 

[5solas]

Hi Diane

I think you will get all the answers you need from here

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html

 

[Jon_]

Actually, dispensationalism IS NOT a theology, but a principal of hermeneutics, or Biblical interpretation. It basically says that G-d always saves by grace according to faith, but that the manifestation or practice of that faith may be different in different times. Abraham believed G-d and it was counted unto him for righteousness' sake. Because of a lack of faithful living according to the promise, the Law of Moses was added to the Promise to act as a schoolmaster to show them their need for Christ.

A dispensational hermeneutic should not affect a practice of infant baptism. Baptism is an act of obedience and identification of the believer with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Infant baptism is NOT Believer's Baptism. Your ident box shows a Baptist Bible, you should know this as a basic Baptist teaching.

Dispensationalism absolutely is a theology. It is this Dispensational theology that determines its hermeneutics, not vice versa as is often alleged. The viewpoint that Scripture should be interpretted literally at almost any cost is itself a theological system based on a number of assumptions regarding the revelation of Scripture.

The truth of the matter is that Dispensational exegetes and conventional exegetes approach the interpretation of the Word with the same due-diligence, care, and reverence. What causes Dispensationalism's disparate division of the Word is its theological presumptions, viz., that God holds Israel under a different covenant than the church. I refuse to allow Dispensationalism the uncontested claim to "Bible theology" or that it simply relates what the Bible says because these and other claims are founded upon Dispensational assumptions, which form the core of its theology.

Dispensationalism is a theology with its own system of hermeneutics.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1- contact Matt McMahon at:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/index.php the discussion board
http://www.apuritansmind.com/MainPage.htm his website
http://www.apuritansmind.com/EmailingCMatthewMcMahon.htm his email page

he responds very quickly and nicely to email.

2. "I am unsure what Covenantal Theology is and how that relates to baptism. Can anybody help me understand this?"

the short answer was given, baptism is analogous to circumcision, it is the sign and seal of the covenant.

3. remember the adage, what Peter says about Paul tells you more about Peter than Paul. on an issue of this complexity and centrality people's theology is going to matter, try to understand answers as coming from a particular theology. which is why asking the question on a board that is designed to be Reformed is a good way of working. you ought to see how Reformed answers cluster around a few themes.

you're not going to solve the problem, nor get a good handle on it in just a few days, divide up the study into managable pieces and plow onward.

...

 

[JJB]

Covenant Theology is the original orthodox understanding of the relativity of the Bible as pertains to the covenant of grace. There are a number of departures between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, but the primary one is that in Dispensationalism, the Jews are covered by a covenant of works (sacrificial atonement: the law), and the Gentiles are covered by a covenant of grace (Jesus's sacrifice). This is not to say that Jews cannot come to Jesus because they can. But it does say that Old Testament saints and Jews under the law are not a part of the church. Dispensationalism teaches that the church began at Pentecost (there are divisions on this, whether it was Acts 2, 7, or 13), but because the Jews rejected Christ (Acts 13), the church became the body of the Gentiles.

Essentially, Dispensationalism divides the Word of God between the Jews and Gentiles. It teaches that God's Messianic promise to the Jews was not fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ and that Jesus's second coming and his millennial reign (all Dispensationalists are premillennial) will fulfill the Jewish Messianic prophecies. Until then, the Gentiles benefit from the covenant of grace in Jesus Christ, which the Jews have rejected.

Dispensationalism is very much a new theology (and it is a theology), founded by Brethren John Nelson Darby in England in the mid-19th century. Some Dispensationalists dispute this tracing of Dispensationalism back to Darby and indeed a lot of Dispensational thought today departs in no small ways from some of Darby's original ideas. It really took off in America with the publication of the original Scofield Reference Bible, which has been the de facto Bible reference for Dispensational hermeneutics and theology for a hundred years, although many modern Dispensationalists shy away from its "outdated" material.

The theology has suffered numerous divisions and professes a number of factions. Orthodox Dispensationalism (often referred to as "ultradispensationalism" now) has gone by the wayside and been revised a number of times to soften the distinctions drawn between the covenants of work and grace. At this time, Dispensationalism is somewhat suffering from an identity crisis with a number of heavy-hitters wavering on their positions regarding orthodox understanding.

Covenant Theology, on the other hand, teaches very simply and plainly that all men, both before and after Christ's work on the cross, are saved by faith in him. Abraham's faith in God as his Redeemer was a type of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. The Old Testament sacrifices were a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to come. The Jews were not saved by the act of sacrifice, they were saved by the redeeming faith that caused them to sacrifice. Covenant Theology makes no distinction between Jew or Gentile with regards to salvation. All are saved through the work of Jesus Christ and faith in him. Covenant Theology further teaches that Israel is a type of the church, meaning, anytime God is speaking to Israel or of Israel in the New or Old Testament, the same can be said to be true of the church (with some obvious exceptions). Here is where Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism depart very radically.

I should also point out that almost every Dispensationalist to the man is a four-point Calvinist. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, has been the unifying understanding of God's covenant of grace with man for all of orthodox Christianity (Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) since the founding of the church. Its roots can be traced all the way back to the earliest of known ante-Nicene fathers, including Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and of course, Justin Martyr, who did more to advance this issue and claim the Old Testament as a Christian book (in his correspondance with Tryppo the Jew) than anyone before him.

For the record, I am firmly convinced of the truth of Covenant Theology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Thanks so much, Jon, for that explanation. Now I understand when some of you guys talk about "the two gospels of dispensationalism".

 

[Dmckay]

I'm not sure what this has to do with my questions concerning Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's retraction.

Diane

I'm not sure how dispensational theology affects infant baptism.

Sorry just addressing your question.

 

[AndOne]

Jon - outstanding explanation on Dispensationalism.

Diane - Like McMahon, I to was Reformed Baptist (Baptist for ten years/Reformed for about 2) - and very recently changed my tune after having studied the issue in some detail when my wife got pregnant. A few months back I posted a lengthy explanation as to why I came to my final conclusion.

Quite frankly - I always adhered to Covenant Theology - I just didn't realize it (if that makes any sense) nor did I feel compeled to research the baptism side of the issue until I had a baby on the way myself.

Under Covenant Theology, Baptism is viewed much like circumcission. The two practices are physical signs of entrance into the Covenant - but the practices themselves are different in that circumcission looks to Christ's future sacrifice whereas baptism represents Christ's finished work and the washing and redemption of our sins.

The key issue that Baptists will try to point out is that nowhere in the New Testament is there a cut-and-dry picture of infant baptism presented. Having read Dr. McMahon's articles I'm sure I don't need to point out the padeobaptist response to you.

I will say this - that in light of Covenant Theology it just makes logical sense to me. Especially when you look to the Old Testament Prophecies concerning the "New Kingdom" (or the Church). Nearly every one includes the children of believers.

Also - infant baptism is even more representative of salvation in my opinion. Infants are helpless and totally dependent on their parents for everything - much like we are in matters of grace; we are totally helpless and dependent upon God to save us.

 

[Jon_]

Jon - outstanding explanation on Dispensationalism.

Diane - Like McMahon, I to was Reformed Baptist (Baptist for ten years/Reformed for about 2) - and very recently changed my tune after having studied the issue in some detail when my wife got pregnant. A few months back I posted a lengthy explanation as to why I came to my final conclusion.

Quite frankly - I always adhered to Covenant Theology - I just didn't realize it (if that makes any sense) nor did I feel compeled to research the baptism side of the issue until I had a baby on the way myself.

Under Covenant Theology, Baptism is viewed much like circumcission. The two practices are physical signs of entrance into the Covenant - but the practices themselves are different in that circumcission looks to Christ's future sacrifice whereas baptism represents Christ's finished work and the washing and redemption of our sins.

The key issue that Baptists will try to point out is that nowhere in the New Testament is there a cut-and-dry picture of infant baptism presented. Having read Dr. McMahon's articles I'm sure I don't need to point out the padeobaptist response to you.

I will say this - that in light of Covenant Theology it just makes logical sense to me. Especially when you look to the Old Testament Prophecies concerning the "New Kingdom" (or the Church). Nearly every one includes the children of believers.

Also - infant baptism is even more representative of salvation in my opinion. Infants are helpless and totally dependent on their parents for everything - much like we are in matters of grace; we are totally helpless and dependent upon God to save us.

Well said, BB.

Originally, I had Baptist-misgivings about the believing-nature of baptism and professed credobaptism (though I was never fully convinced of the necessity of immersion). But as I looked into the subject more, the Lord revealed, in no small part through the truth of Covenant Theology, that the significance of circumcision as a type of baptism and the circumstances surrounding its application would seem to call for the baptism of infant covenant children (children born to believers) at least.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Dmckay]

Dispensationalism absolutely is a theology. It is this Dispensational theology that determines its hermeneutics, not vice versa as is often alleged. The viewpoint that Scripture should be interpretted literally at almost any cost is itself a theological system based on a number of assumptions regarding the revelation of Scripture.

The truth of the matter is that Dispensational exegetes and conventional exegetes approach the interpretation of the Word with the same due-diligence, care, and reverence. What causes Dispensationalism's disparate division of the Word is its theological presumptions, viz., that God holds Israel under a different covenant than the church. I refuse to allow Dispensationalism the uncontested claim to "Bible theology" or that it simply relates what the Bible says because these and other claims are founded upon Dispensational assumptions, which form the core of its theology.

Dispensationalism is a theology with its own system of hermeneutics.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

How fortunate you are at the tender age of 23 to be so sure of your position. I didn't realize that I have been teaching wrongly for about twice the length of time that you have been alive. Here I am a 5 point T.U.L.I.P. believer, with a half-dozen hermeneutic principles books in my library, all listing dispensationalism as merely one of a couple dozen principles

 

[Dmckay]

Dispensationalism absolutely is a theology. It is this Dispensational theology that determines its hermeneutics, not vice versa as is often alleged. The viewpoint that Scripture should be interpretted literally at almost any cost is itself a theological system based on a number of assumptions regarding the revelation of Scripture.

The truth of the matter is that Dispensational exegetes and conventional exegetes approach the interpretation of the Word with the same due-diligence, care, and reverence. What causes Dispensationalism's disparate division of the Word is its theological presumptions, viz., that God holds Israel under a different covenant than the church. I refuse to allow Dispensationalism the uncontested claim to "Bible theology" or that it simply relates what the Bible says because these and other claims are founded upon Dispensational assumptions, which form the core of its theology.

Dispensationalism is a theology with its own system of hermeneutics.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

How fortunate you are at the tender age of 23 to be so sure of your position. I didn't realize that I have been teaching wrongly for about twice the length of time that you have been alive. Here I am a 5 point T.U.L.I.P. believer, with a half-dozen hermeneutic principles books in my library, all listing dispensationalism as merely one of a couple dozen principles to be considered when interpreting Scripture.

Indeed, you have been truely blessed with wisdom far surpassing that of even my old professors who all were also convinced that dispensationalism was merely a tool for understanding Scripture. If it were not for the fact that they are all now with the Lord I would send them your writings to correct their misconceptions. However, I'm sure that the Lord has now shown them the error of their ways.

Perhaps, now that I have been corrrected on this, I shouldd reexamine my position on T.U.L.I.P., since there are so many on this Forum who have so diligently tried to correct me that this position I hold is also incorrect. I am so blessed to have discovered a place filled with so many young dogmatic experts to correct the errors of my way. How could I have ever survived without the wisdom of youth?

 

[Dmckay]

Veteran Jon,

Might I suggest that you seek out Van and Ben Johnson? Between the three of you, you should be able to straighten out all of this Forum's and the World's problems in short order.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Veteran Jon,

Might I suggest that you seek out Van and Ben Johnson? Between the three of you, you should be able to straighten out all of this Forum's and the World's problems in short order.

Back off from our brother-the above remarks are entirely inappropriate for this thread and are off-topic.

DW

 

[Jon_]

Hmm, perhaps I am wrong (as would be Dr. John Gerstner, Dr. R.C. Sproul, and other Reformed theologians who allege the same). I would be happy to admit that I was wrong if you could show how the Dispensationalism fits into any currently existing theology. It is certainly not Reformed. It's not Catholic. It's not Orthodox. Where does it fall?

Please humor my tender, young, impressionable mind, and answer me, What is the purpose of a Dispensation? Why divide the Word of God? What is there to be gained by drawing lines in the Scriptures?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hmm, perhaps I am wrong (as would be Dr. John Gerstner, Dr. R.C. Sproul, and other Reformed theologians who allege the same). I would be happy to admit that I was wrong if you could show how the Dispensationalism fits into any currently existing theology. It is certainly not Reformed. It's not Catholic. It's not Orthodox. Where does it fall?

Please humor my tender, young, impressionable mind, and answer me, What is the purpose of a Dispensation? Why divide the Word of God? What is there to be gained by drawing lines in the Scriptures?

it appears that Dispensationalism begins as a particular hermeneutical technique to read the verses that have to do specifically with eschatology.
see: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/disp2.html#f8

Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism originating among the Plymouth Brethren in the early 1830's. The father of dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, educated as a lawyer and ordained Anglican priest, was one of the chief founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement, which arose in reaction against the perceived empty formalism of the Church of England. To the Brethren the true "invisible" church was to come out of the apostate "visible" Church, rejecting such forms as priesthood and sacraments.

Dispensational theology centers upon the concept of God's dealings with mankind being divided into (usually) seven distinct economies or "dispensations", in which man is tested as to his obedience to the will of God as revealed under each dispensation.

Dispensationalists see God as pursuing two distinct purposes throughout history, one related to an earthly goal and an earthly people (the Jews), the other to heavenly goals and a heavenly people (the church).1

but it doesn't stop development at that stage but over the last hundred years has become a theology with all the normal pieces that we expect, not just hermeneutics and eschatology. So the terms dispensationalist theology or dispensationalist systematic theology book are not oxymorons but really do describe something real. as such it is a direct competitor to covenant theology which in turn is an important piece of Reformed theology.

the fact that they were an eccelesiastical reform movement ties them with lots of restorationist type of millennial movements, in which they are usually classified.

....

 

[Jon_]

it appears that Dispensationalism begins as a particular hermeneutical technique to read the verses that have to do specifically with eschatology.
see: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/disp2.html#f8

but it doesn't stop development at that stage but over the last hundred years has become a theology with all the normal pieces that we expect, not just hermeneutics and eschatology. So the terms dispensationalist theology or dispensationalist systematic theology book are not oxymorons but really do describe something real. as such it is a direct competitor to covenant theology with in turn is an important piece of Reformed theology.

the fact that they were an eccelesiastical reform movement ties them with lots of restorationist type of millennial movements, in which they are usually classified.

....

Precisely. While Dispensationalism's origins might be owed to Darby's peculiar hermeneutical system, the natural end of the conclusions reached when using that hermeneutic is an entirely separate system of theology. My argument is not that Dispensationalism does not comprise an hermeneutic. My argument is that hermeneutic is both consequential and causal of that theology.

I never could understand while Dispensationalists became so indignant of the classification of the system as a theology. Why the hostility on this point? Is it because they intrinsically know that it is indefensible as a system of theological thought? Or something else?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Does it really matter if dispensationalism is a "hermeneutic" or a "theology"? I don't think this has anything to do with my questions in the OP.

Diane