When my family visited Ghana over the summer, it seemed like everything costed exactly one cedi (the Ghanaian currency), whether it was for a parking spot or internet use. So I wrote a little song about it and recorded it on my mandolin. Sorry about the poor quality of the pick. After spending so much money on state-of-the-art recording equipment and a professional singer, I couldn't afford a proper pick[]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTiG3E4o-RY
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Infant Baptism
This is a paper defending infant baptism that I wrote last school year and recently re-edited. Let me know what you think; I welcome critiques of the arguments.
Infant Baptism
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” As Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father at the end of Matthew 28, he left commands to make disciples, baptize, and teach. We are to disciple all nations and teach those we disciple, but whom are we to baptize? One of the most difficult issues in this question is the dilemma of infant baptism: should we baptize babies or not? I believe that the answer to this is 'yes'. According to God's Word, baptism ought to be given to infants. This conclusion ultimately rests on the purpose of baptism. If we can determine the reason for the institution of baptism, we can apply that to the case of infants and determine if it is proper or not.
British theologian Bruce Milne sees four components to baptism: it is a confession of faith, it is an experience of communion with Christ, it is a consecration to live circumspectly for Christ afterwards, and lastly, it is a promise of consummation through Christ. It is not important to fully understand what Milne means by each of these elements; it is enough to recognize that infants should be excluded from baptism by this definition as they cannot express a faith in Christ nor are they capable of consciously committing their lives to Christ. This is a very common way of viewing baptism and its function today, but it is far from universal.
John Calvin interpreted baptism as a sign of our forgiveness, and of our participation in Christ's death and resurrection. Another way he described baptism is as a sign of initiation by which we are received into the society of the church in order to be reckoned among God's children by being engrafted in Christ. Calvin did not see baptism as a cause of salvation, but rather baptism gives us a knowledge and a certainty of the gifts we receive through Christ's redeeming work. This is the Biblical view of baptism to which the majority of the church has adhered to for centuries. First Peter 3:21 says of the flood waters of Noah's time, “...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This means that baptism is a sacrament that seals our union with the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:4 likewise says, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” So baptism bears some connection with salvation as it unites us with Christ's resurrection, without actually saving us.
A useful metaphor for infant baptism is that of a check. Imagine that a baby is given a kind of check at baptism. When the child grows up, they can either chose to cash it, or throw it away. The check itself is a piece of paper, worth nothing, just as baptism does nothing to effect salvation. However, it has the potential to be a great value to that child if it is followed by proper action. Again, this is the true purpose of baptism: it functions as a sign of the grace we receive through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and brings us into the community of the church. While infants cannot exercise faith, they are in no less need of adoption into the family of God.
So the very definition of baptism seems to imply that infants should be baptized. But what does Scripture say? The following two arguments will center around Biblical texts and salvation, respectively. First of all, baptism provides a connection with Christ, as established above. It is a sign of participation in the new covenant established by Christ. This covenant was a continuation and fulfillment of the promises of four key Old Testament covenants which were for God's people and their descendants. Children were always included.
When God made a covenant with Noah he said this in Genesis 9:9, "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...” When Abraham received the promises of land and a great nation in Genesis 17, God said “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” In fact, the phrase, “and your descendants,” is used five times in the rest of this passage. In 2 Samuel 7, David receives a similar promise to his entire family. Lastly, Psalm 103 spoke of God's covenant with Moses in verses 17 and 18, “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.” In all of these covenants, children are the recipients. Hebrew infants were not shunned from society or refused circumcision (the Old Testament sign of the covenant) until they were old enough to understand the covenant. Neither should today's infants be refused baptism or union with the church until they place their faith in Christ.
In Acts 2:38-39, Peter spoke of the new covenant in Christ: “Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” For millenia God's people understood the covenant in terms of family and descendants. When Peter refered to the promise being “for you and for your children” the Jewish listeners knew exactly what he meant. If there were a major shift from a covenant for descendants to one excluding infants someone would have explained this crucial change. Certainly, Peter added “all whom the Lord our God will call” to the covenant, but he did not abolish the old covenant in doing so. Rather, he carried on the promise to the children in the covenant community. If infants are included in the covenant, they must receive baptism as the symbol of participation in the family of God just as infants had previously received the sacrament of circumcision.
Let us now move on to the second argument for infant baptism. Imagine that baptism must only come after faith and therefore is not appropriate for infants. This necessarily brings up the issue of salvation, specifically the question of whether or not infants are saved. This is an even more difficult question than that of infant baptism, so let us imagine both alternatives. First, if infants are not saved until they reach an age at which they can express a faith in Christ, we should do everything we can for the well-being of their souls. They are in all the more need of that means of grace and union with Christ since they cannot receive grace through faith. (I am still not saying that baptism would save the infant, simply that an infant has greater need for the benefits baptism does offer.)
Second, imagine that infants are saved at birth and remain so until they reach some “age of accountability” at which God knows them to be responsible for their attitude towards him. If this is true and infants are saved, then they are heirs of the kingdom of heaven and inherit a place in the covenant. Nothing should then keep them from baptism. As part of the family of God, they should receive the sacrament ordained by God that seals their participation in the covenant. It is not for the purpose of saving the infant, or even necessarily for the infant to “get something out of it”, but simply for the purpose of following the commands of Christ and the example of the apostles in baptizing members of the family of God. So infants should be baptized whether they are saved or not.
In addition, we can be assured that infants are saved. In chapter nineteen of Matthew's gospel, little children were brought to Jesus to be blessed. It is clear from the original context that this referred to toddlers and infants, not older children. The twelve disciples rebuked those who brought the children but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” The New King James Version says “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Then Jesus proceeded to bless them.
This seems explicit that infants are saved as Christ clearly says that kingdom of heaven is a place of children. However, some would argue that Jesus was only saying that we need child-like faith to be saved. If this is true and Christ was merely using an analogy, it would be very inaccurate. If infants who die are actually destined for the Lake of Fire, they are a poor example of those who go to heaven for their child-like faith. In addition, if infants are not saved, it would not make sense for Jesus to bless them. Nowhere else in the Old or New Testaments is there a precedent for the damned being blessed. The types of people who are blessed in scripture are people of faith, disciples, chosen individuals, and the family of God. When Jesus blessed the little children, he made it clear that they were chosen heirs of the kingdom. Therefore, they are included in Christ's new covenant and ought to receive the sealing sign of that covenant: baptism.
Despite this evidence, some would say that infants ought not to be baptized, and their case is reasonable. They often argue that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible, and therefore we have no reason to. First of all, we have no record of women partaking in the Lord's Supper, but we would not view this as grounds to forbid them from participating. So too, there may be no clear reference to infant baptism in the Bible, but that is not enough reason (though it may provide evidence) to exclude babies. But more importantly, while there may be no command to baptize infants, there is also no command to refuse infants baptism; and this seems to be the more weighty scriptural silence. For thousands of years God's covenants with Israel were bound up in their descendants. It was always a promise passed from parent to child. When Peter told the Jews at Pentecost that “the promise is for you and your children,” they would not have understood that God was completely changing the way his covenant operated. They would have assumed, as their great-great grandparents had, that the promise was for their children, and the sign of the promise was too. Again, nowhere in the Bible are we informed that the sign of the covenant now operates differently than it has for millenia and applies only to adults.
To this, some would respond that the church is simply not Israel. The similarity between circumcision and baptism as signs of the covenant cannot be drawn because we are not a “replacement”, or “new” Israel; the covenant is different. However, the promises of a saving Messiah in the Old Covenant are the same promises graciously extended to Gentiles in the New Covenant. The church has been brought into the covenant and the its blessings are extended to us as well. In addition, baptism was meant to be a unifying sign between all followers of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, though sadly, the Jewish people have largely rejected him. All nations were to be baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus, baptism is the sign of the covenant for the church just as there have been covenant signs in the past.
Again, someone may question using infant circumcision as a reason for infant baptism on the grounds that it would imply that women should not be baptized. Since circumcision applied only to males, baptism would as well, if we are drawing the connection for infants. However, this broadening of scope from men to all people makes sense with the New Covenant. As Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Before, the covenant had applied only to God's chosen people, the people of Israel. The New covenant has been expanded to all who will follow Christ, Jew and Greek, male and female. The sign of baptism is also broadened to all of God's children.
As in God's covenant with Moses and with Abraham before him and with Noah before him, there is always a sign of the covenant. The sign that Christ instituted is baptism. Just as the people of God circumcised infants in the past, it is fitting that the family of God should baptize infants today. It is through grace that they are saved and made part of the kingdom of heaven. Who are we to refuse to infants God's ordained sign of participation in that kingdom?
Bibliography
1.Barker, Kenneth L., ed. New International Version Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
2.Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. McNeill, John T., ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
3.Clark, Bryan. “Little Ones to Him Belong.” 8/20/2006: http://gvpchurch.org/index.php/sermons
4.Hamling, Jeff. “Circumcised by...Water?” 4/29/2007: http://www.gvpchurch.org/index.php/sermons
5.Hughes, Bryan. “The Kingdom Belongs to Children.” 12/30/2007: http://gbcmt.org/sermons.php?series=Matthew
6.Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
7.Pratt, Richard L., Jr. Understanding Four Views of Baptism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
8.Waymeyer, Matt. A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism. The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2008.
Infant Baptism
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” As Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father at the end of Matthew 28, he left commands to make disciples, baptize, and teach. We are to disciple all nations and teach those we disciple, but whom are we to baptize? One of the most difficult issues in this question is the dilemma of infant baptism: should we baptize babies or not? I believe that the answer to this is 'yes'. According to God's Word, baptism ought to be given to infants. This conclusion ultimately rests on the purpose of baptism. If we can determine the reason for the institution of baptism, we can apply that to the case of infants and determine if it is proper or not.
British theologian Bruce Milne sees four components to baptism: it is a confession of faith, it is an experience of communion with Christ, it is a consecration to live circumspectly for Christ afterwards, and lastly, it is a promise of consummation through Christ. It is not important to fully understand what Milne means by each of these elements; it is enough to recognize that infants should be excluded from baptism by this definition as they cannot express a faith in Christ nor are they capable of consciously committing their lives to Christ. This is a very common way of viewing baptism and its function today, but it is far from universal.
John Calvin interpreted baptism as a sign of our forgiveness, and of our participation in Christ's death and resurrection. Another way he described baptism is as a sign of initiation by which we are received into the society of the church in order to be reckoned among God's children by being engrafted in Christ. Calvin did not see baptism as a cause of salvation, but rather baptism gives us a knowledge and a certainty of the gifts we receive through Christ's redeeming work. This is the Biblical view of baptism to which the majority of the church has adhered to for centuries. First Peter 3:21 says of the flood waters of Noah's time, “...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This means that baptism is a sacrament that seals our union with the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:4 likewise says, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” So baptism bears some connection with salvation as it unites us with Christ's resurrection, without actually saving us.
A useful metaphor for infant baptism is that of a check. Imagine that a baby is given a kind of check at baptism. When the child grows up, they can either chose to cash it, or throw it away. The check itself is a piece of paper, worth nothing, just as baptism does nothing to effect salvation. However, it has the potential to be a great value to that child if it is followed by proper action. Again, this is the true purpose of baptism: it functions as a sign of the grace we receive through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and brings us into the community of the church. While infants cannot exercise faith, they are in no less need of adoption into the family of God.
So the very definition of baptism seems to imply that infants should be baptized. But what does Scripture say? The following two arguments will center around Biblical texts and salvation, respectively. First of all, baptism provides a connection with Christ, as established above. It is a sign of participation in the new covenant established by Christ. This covenant was a continuation and fulfillment of the promises of four key Old Testament covenants which were for God's people and their descendants. Children were always included.
When God made a covenant with Noah he said this in Genesis 9:9, "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...” When Abraham received the promises of land and a great nation in Genesis 17, God said “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” In fact, the phrase, “and your descendants,” is used five times in the rest of this passage. In 2 Samuel 7, David receives a similar promise to his entire family. Lastly, Psalm 103 spoke of God's covenant with Moses in verses 17 and 18, “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.” In all of these covenants, children are the recipients. Hebrew infants were not shunned from society or refused circumcision (the Old Testament sign of the covenant) until they were old enough to understand the covenant. Neither should today's infants be refused baptism or union with the church until they place their faith in Christ.
In Acts 2:38-39, Peter spoke of the new covenant in Christ: “Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” For millenia God's people understood the covenant in terms of family and descendants. When Peter refered to the promise being “for you and for your children” the Jewish listeners knew exactly what he meant. If there were a major shift from a covenant for descendants to one excluding infants someone would have explained this crucial change. Certainly, Peter added “all whom the Lord our God will call” to the covenant, but he did not abolish the old covenant in doing so. Rather, he carried on the promise to the children in the covenant community. If infants are included in the covenant, they must receive baptism as the symbol of participation in the family of God just as infants had previously received the sacrament of circumcision.
Let us now move on to the second argument for infant baptism. Imagine that baptism must only come after faith and therefore is not appropriate for infants. This necessarily brings up the issue of salvation, specifically the question of whether or not infants are saved. This is an even more difficult question than that of infant baptism, so let us imagine both alternatives. First, if infants are not saved until they reach an age at which they can express a faith in Christ, we should do everything we can for the well-being of their souls. They are in all the more need of that means of grace and union with Christ since they cannot receive grace through faith. (I am still not saying that baptism would save the infant, simply that an infant has greater need for the benefits baptism does offer.)
Second, imagine that infants are saved at birth and remain so until they reach some “age of accountability” at which God knows them to be responsible for their attitude towards him. If this is true and infants are saved, then they are heirs of the kingdom of heaven and inherit a place in the covenant. Nothing should then keep them from baptism. As part of the family of God, they should receive the sacrament ordained by God that seals their participation in the covenant. It is not for the purpose of saving the infant, or even necessarily for the infant to “get something out of it”, but simply for the purpose of following the commands of Christ and the example of the apostles in baptizing members of the family of God. So infants should be baptized whether they are saved or not.
In addition, we can be assured that infants are saved. In chapter nineteen of Matthew's gospel, little children were brought to Jesus to be blessed. It is clear from the original context that this referred to toddlers and infants, not older children. The twelve disciples rebuked those who brought the children but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” The New King James Version says “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Then Jesus proceeded to bless them.
This seems explicit that infants are saved as Christ clearly says that kingdom of heaven is a place of children. However, some would argue that Jesus was only saying that we need child-like faith to be saved. If this is true and Christ was merely using an analogy, it would be very inaccurate. If infants who die are actually destined for the Lake of Fire, they are a poor example of those who go to heaven for their child-like faith. In addition, if infants are not saved, it would not make sense for Jesus to bless them. Nowhere else in the Old or New Testaments is there a precedent for the damned being blessed. The types of people who are blessed in scripture are people of faith, disciples, chosen individuals, and the family of God. When Jesus blessed the little children, he made it clear that they were chosen heirs of the kingdom. Therefore, they are included in Christ's new covenant and ought to receive the sealing sign of that covenant: baptism.
Despite this evidence, some would say that infants ought not to be baptized, and their case is reasonable. They often argue that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible, and therefore we have no reason to. First of all, we have no record of women partaking in the Lord's Supper, but we would not view this as grounds to forbid them from participating. So too, there may be no clear reference to infant baptism in the Bible, but that is not enough reason (though it may provide evidence) to exclude babies. But more importantly, while there may be no command to baptize infants, there is also no command to refuse infants baptism; and this seems to be the more weighty scriptural silence. For thousands of years God's covenants with Israel were bound up in their descendants. It was always a promise passed from parent to child. When Peter told the Jews at Pentecost that “the promise is for you and your children,” they would not have understood that God was completely changing the way his covenant operated. They would have assumed, as their great-great grandparents had, that the promise was for their children, and the sign of the promise was too. Again, nowhere in the Bible are we informed that the sign of the covenant now operates differently than it has for millenia and applies only to adults.
To this, some would respond that the church is simply not Israel. The similarity between circumcision and baptism as signs of the covenant cannot be drawn because we are not a “replacement”, or “new” Israel; the covenant is different. However, the promises of a saving Messiah in the Old Covenant are the same promises graciously extended to Gentiles in the New Covenant. The church has been brought into the covenant and the its blessings are extended to us as well. In addition, baptism was meant to be a unifying sign between all followers of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, though sadly, the Jewish people have largely rejected him. All nations were to be baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus, baptism is the sign of the covenant for the church just as there have been covenant signs in the past.
Again, someone may question using infant circumcision as a reason for infant baptism on the grounds that it would imply that women should not be baptized. Since circumcision applied only to males, baptism would as well, if we are drawing the connection for infants. However, this broadening of scope from men to all people makes sense with the New Covenant. As Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Before, the covenant had applied only to God's chosen people, the people of Israel. The New covenant has been expanded to all who will follow Christ, Jew and Greek, male and female. The sign of baptism is also broadened to all of God's children.
As in God's covenant with Moses and with Abraham before him and with Noah before him, there is always a sign of the covenant. The sign that Christ instituted is baptism. Just as the people of God circumcised infants in the past, it is fitting that the family of God should baptize infants today. It is through grace that they are saved and made part of the kingdom of heaven. Who are we to refuse to infants God's ordained sign of participation in that kingdom?
Bibliography
1.Barker, Kenneth L., ed. New International Version Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
2.Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. McNeill, John T., ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
3.Clark, Bryan. “Little Ones to Him Belong.” 8/20/2006: http://gvpchurch.org/index.php/sermons
4.Hamling, Jeff. “Circumcised by...Water?” 4/29/2007: http://www.gvpchurch.org/index.php/sermons
5.Hughes, Bryan. “The Kingdom Belongs to Children.” 12/30/2007: http://gbcmt.org/sermons.php?series=Matthew
6.Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
7.Pratt, Richard L., Jr. Understanding Four Views of Baptism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
8.Waymeyer, Matt. A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism. The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2008.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Snake is Dead!
A few weeks ago, my family and some friends went on a float trip on the Smith River. While stopping for lunch, we had an experience worthy of an allegorical poem.
The Snake is Dead! 8/12/2010
We killed the deadly rattlesnake!
The snake is dead!
With stones and wood
We crushed the serpent's fearsome head.
We stopped the boats along the bank,
And in the trees
And garden grass
We saw a sight that made us freeze.
A mighty serpent waited there.
From off the ground
We gathered stones
And on the snake we cast them down.
Trapped between a curse and death,
'Twixt fire and flood
And thirty stones
Upon the fateful Field of Blood.
Though once the king of his domain,
The serpent cowered,
No more disguised
By branches bent, fruit-filled and flowered.
My father took a mighty rod,
Though roodly hewn,
From off a tree
And on the ground so haply strewn,
It was our help in time of need.
Straight and true
He swung it down
And with it, rent the air in two.
And darkness wrapped the day in night,
But only for
The eyes of him
Who's head was crushed forevermore.
The sun shone red upon the water
Flowing by,
As if to spread
The word to every dragonfly.
The stone that held the serpent down
We rolled with dread
And saw the truth:
The snake was dead. The snake was dead!
With joy we ventured back again
To eat the feast
For which we'd hoped
Before we stayed our journey east.
On bread and meat we laughed and drank.
We ate with zeal
And love and life
As if it were a wedding meal.
The Snake is Dead! 8/12/2010
We killed the deadly rattlesnake!
The snake is dead!
With stones and wood
We crushed the serpent's fearsome head.
We stopped the boats along the bank,
And in the trees
And garden grass
We saw a sight that made us freeze.
A mighty serpent waited there.
From off the ground
We gathered stones
And on the snake we cast them down.
Trapped between a curse and death,
'Twixt fire and flood
And thirty stones
Upon the fateful Field of Blood.
Though once the king of his domain,
The serpent cowered,
No more disguised
By branches bent, fruit-filled and flowered.
My father took a mighty rod,
Though roodly hewn,
From off a tree
And on the ground so haply strewn,
It was our help in time of need.
Straight and true
He swung it down
And with it, rent the air in two.
And darkness wrapped the day in night,
But only for
The eyes of him
Who's head was crushed forevermore.
The sun shone red upon the water
Flowing by,
As if to spread
The word to every dragonfly.
The stone that held the serpent down
We rolled with dread
And saw the truth:
The snake was dead. The snake was dead!
With joy we ventured back again
To eat the feast
For which we'd hoped
Before we stayed our journey east.
On bread and meat we laughed and drank.
We ate with zeal
And love and life
As if it were a wedding meal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)