Comments on: Another Gospel

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:14:27 +0000

Union with Christ is the willingness of the bride to follow him through death to partake in His resurrection. It means witness/martyrdom. She hears his voice, but must willingly witness and die (either symbolically or physically) to see His face. That’s what we see going on in the Revelation – with the Firstfruits saints, robed in white. Not a baby in sight. Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with infants. It is for those who publicly witness to Christ.

By: Chris W

Chris W — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:05:37 +0000

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply, I like your answers. I have one more question though.

Would you agree with the FV types that baptism is fundamentally about union with Christ (as per Romans 6, colossians 2) rather than just priestly ministry? Of course, it is about priestly ministry, but the bible suggests more than that. Do you believe that we receive the Spirit through baptism, as per Acts 2:38-39 et al?

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:47:52 +0000

Hi Chris

Good thoughts, but you wonderful FV gents seem to have trouble thinking outside the FV idea of Covenant. My whole point was that when it comes to our children, just like anyone else, the first contact must be the gospel. Whether the child is ours by birth or adoption, they are already “under Covenant” because Christ is glorified at the right hand of the Father. It is not our duty to place them under some vow they are not aware of, but to preach the gospel to them.

We govern corporately, but the entire point of the New Covenant is that, as individuals, we are of one mind. There is most definitely a middle ground, or marriage, between modern individualism and FV objectivism, and it is New Covenant believers.

The Bible does place baptism into the process of maturity — one who has been tested and is ready to begin to govern for others. It does not the begin the process. The gospel begins the process. Baptism means we are qualified to preach the gospel to others.

I hope that helps.
Thanks for you comments!
Mike

By: Chris W

Chris W — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:42:21 +0000

Mike,

Great post, much to think about. Here are some points to ponder:

1) The next generation waited until they were about to enter the promised land before being circumcised. There was another ‘circumcision’ corresponding to the conquest of the land (Joshua 5). Hence both baptism and circumcision can signify resurrection (conquest) as well as death (passover).

2) “Also, we have moved from blood and bloodline to faith and Spirit.”

I would argue that parenthood is more of a spiritual category, especially when adoption gets involved. I’m not convinced by the ‘human government’ argument, I do think that babies can be mediators (in a sense) and I think that we govern corporately, not just as individuals.

3) Whereas you see baptism connected to maturity in a direct sense, I (probably along with the other FV chaps) see it as the start of a process of maturity, as a means of maturity. Romans 6 links the ‘new life’ resurrection of baptism with growth in spiritual maturity.

Would love to know how you’d respond to these, especially given that you have a far better grasp of biblical theology/structure than myself.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:47:52 +0000

Yep – that’s it. I hope to flesh, er, spirit, this out a bit more very shortly.

By: Simon Kennedy

Simon Kennedy — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:52:43 +0000

Nice work, Mike. I’ve been tossing and turning over baptism for quite some time. I’m a postmillennialist (you’ll be pleased to know. Quite recently converted from an being an ignorant premillenialist.) The issues I’ve been wrestling with are the covenantal shape of God’s plan for the world, and what it means for the sacraments. In other words, I’ve been trying to work out how to be a covenantal Baptist.

The import which paedobaptists place on the rite is great, and so I’m pleased to be reading that you place the same import on it, but in a credobaptistic way. I also finally get what you’ve been saying to Wilson’s posts – the covenant people are first marked out by the hearing/believing of the gospel (the blood of the New Covenant), and then marked out by baptism as a sign of their entrance into the covenant. It’s not just some schmoe saying ‘I believe!’ and the pastor saying ‘OK, lets dunk in water you because you’ve said you believe!’. It’s a sign for the covenant people of the faithfulness of their covenant Head, who by baptism is investing them with the gospel.

Yeah?

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:26:37 +0000

Thanks David
It comes down to the work of the Spirit, or, more succinctly, what is the FIRST work of the Spirit? The first work is always conviction of sin, a cutting by the law-edge of the gospel. Our children are “sanctified”, that is, set apart, for the HEARING of the gospel. But this is not what baptism is for. Baptism is for when they respond, hopefully as early as possible.

By: Pastor David Deutsch

Pastor David Deutsch — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:09:50 +0000

Mike, good stuff and I wish Baptists went in the direction that you have. We could certainly have a lot more fun and be more effective as a Church. I have much to respond to here but just one thought on this your thought: “The claim that an infant can be identified with Christ by the Spirit in baptism is a sophistry made up out of whole cloth. It’s an ugly, man-made Frankenstein of a doctrine that has no basis in Scripture.”

A mighty strong claim my friend so a question to ya. Can an infant Scripturally be identified with Christ by the Spirit and thus baptized? Are we Frankenstein here too?

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:42:35 +0000

Hi Robert

I have dealt with these points elsewhere on here (including the New Covenant definition of offspring) and I don’t buy the “age of accountability” either. I do understand your concerns, but the hope of your children is the gospel of Christ, not baptism. It’s the Bible that says we are damned until we do such. That’s the bottom line, and messing with it negates the gospel. We treat our kids like we are commanded to treat anyone who is yet “unregenerate”: the gospel, sacrificial love, and prayer. In FV thinking, even when they ARE baptized they might still fall away, so either way you must trust Christ for them. Baptism isn’t a salvation-humidicrib to keep them safe until they reach this “FV age of accountability.” For infants and the mentally handicapped, we rely on the mercy of God, and He is merciful. But that is up to Him.

Thanks for commenting. It’s an honour to know you.

By: Robert Murphy

Robert Murphy — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:52:27 +0000

My fundamental beef with credobaptism comes down to my children. One is retarded, one is very young and the other is a baby. They are all incapable of understanding and repeated propositional versions of the gospel. If at all logically consistent, credobaptism says they are damned until they do such. This doesn’t jive with “I will be God to you and your children after you.” Nowhere in Acts 2 does Peter tell the first Jews-become-Christian, “It used to be your children are saved and received the Sign of the Covenant, but no more.” If my children die before the Never-Mentioned-in-the-Bible-and-Magical Age of Accountability, or if they never reach that mental plateau, they are not lost.