'My Covenant View, Biblical Interpretation
Biblical Interpretation
In my many debates with my brothers, who hold to a believers baptism only [I used to be a Baptist] I sometimes would begin the debate with this area. How do we interpret the Bible? In many cases you will hear the Baptist saying “show me in the New Testament where babies were baptized?” What this person is showing is that they have a certain way that they interpret the Bible. Something must be stated or commanded in the New Testament for it to be binding on Christian beliefs and practice. But this is not consistent with the Bible itself.
How many times does God have to command something before it becomes binding in His peoples lives?
The correct answer is once!
When God commands something back in the Old Testament it is binding on God’s people UNLESS He says otherwise. What this means is when God commands something in the Old Testament it is still binding on God’s people unless He annuals it in the New Testament. Unless God specifically commands that children are no longer to receive the covenant sign and to be brought into a covenant relationship with Him [as infants], then we are to continue to do what we have been commanded.
posted by Dale Callahan at 4:36 AM
4 Comments:
OK. Show me in the Bible where it says we should baptize babies?
1 Cor 10:1-4...
"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."
We walk on dangerous ground when we negate the Apostle Pauls interpretation of the Old Testament just because it doesn't fit in with our preconceived systematic theologies.
Abraham, as an adult, believed God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness. He is the father of the faithful. But his children who were eight days old were brought into the covenant [and were given the initial sign] without the initial exercise of faith. They were raised to trust and obey the Lord God.
Now you show me in the Bible, that after centuries of the children of the godly being brought into covenant, and given the sign, that now they are forbidden this.
With regard to your first post above, the apostle’s interpretation of the Old Testament was not the question. It was where in the new we find infant baptism. And of course, our entire perspective of the Old Testament is in light of the New, no? I think our only approach to the Old Testament must be in the context of a systematic theology enriched by New Testament theology (how else would we see the Trinity in the Old? or who sees a Trinitarian God in the Old Testament who does not confirm the teachings of the New Testament?). But since “baptized into Moses” (not sprinkled with Moses) and “passing through the sea” (also immersion foreshadowed) are mere pointers toward New Testament baptism, let’s look there.
But no, first we glance back again to Old Testament circumcision. Shall we therefore review the Apostle Paul’s interpretation? Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Galatians 5:2 Not as severe as forbidding it, I agree. Then read the apostle build his case: “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. Gal 5:3. A warning! And then, like the Psalmist of old who cries out and then pants with resignation in the hope of his God “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Gal 5:11. This does not sound to me like any exhortation to continue the thing, or any thing like it! Nor does it sound like a mere substitution of circumcision for baptism, lest baptism be equally vain, equally burdensome and equally violating of “faith, working through love”. But how is it now “forbidden”? The way horse-drawn carriages are forbidden, the way living in animal-skin teepees is forbidden, the way crossbows are forbidden in the military; by sheer vanity through out-datedness.
But finally enough of old practices and sour words, see the glowing report of New Testament baptism! “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4 and “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Colossians 2:12.
As for baptizing infants, I can make no reference to the topic in the New Testament, since none exist which was, after all, my thesis.
Post a Comment
<< Home