The discussion of baptism can challenge us with some deep questions about our faith. With as many questions that are presented, there may be as many different answers from various people. I believe the differences in perspectives lie primarily in understanding the purpose of baptism as we understand it from the Bible. The purpose isn’t that clear though because there are several assumptions that have to be made for differing perspectives. It's also important to remember that this is a secondary doctrine in the faith as it is not essential to the faith itself, and many devout Christians hold differing perspectives with conviction.
The three primary positions I've understood that different denominations hold are baptismal regeneration, baptism as a sign of a person's faith, and baptism as a sign of the covenant of grace. The first position of baptismal regeneration I disagree with wholeheartedly as the Bible is not ambiguous on this, it clearly does not teach any regeneration that occurs from baptism. Catholic tradition can lead people to believe that regeneration takes place, but this is not the teachings from the Bible.
Regarding the second and third positions, I changed my position many years ago from baptism being a sign of a person's faith to one that signifies God's covenant of grace. Baptist denominations primarily hold baptism as an ordinance and as the sign of faith, as a believer's baptism. Many other Christian denominations hold baptism as the sign of the covenant. The covenantal position I believe is most consistent with the purpose of baptism and is most consistent with the OT giving of the sign of the covenant in Abraham. The male children received the sign of circumcision, which was a permanent and physical sign to them that they were to be set apart as God’s elect. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant that Abraham first received when he was called to become the father of the people of God.
When we come to the NT we see many changes because we are now a part of the "new covenant" as Jesus described. In Luke 22:20 Jesus said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Even more, the sacrifices of bulls and goats were discontinued because of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In Hebrews 8:13 we read, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." As we also know God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations, Gen. 17:4, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations." This describes how Israel would not be the only nation to receive the covenant of grace.
The new covenant is not proclaimed to just one nation but to all nations. And the sign of this new covenant was no longer circumcision but baptism, and it is not just to the male children but to the females as well. Receiving the sign of the covenant in the NT is consistent with the pattern and principle of the people of faith in the OT. But the key point is that it is the sign of the “new covenant” and not the old.
The three primary positions I've understood that different denominations hold are baptismal regeneration, baptism as a sign of a person's faith, and baptism as a sign of the covenant of grace. The first position of baptismal regeneration I disagree with wholeheartedly as the Bible is not ambiguous on this, it clearly does not teach any regeneration that occurs from baptism. Catholic tradition can lead people to believe that regeneration takes place, but this is not the teachings from the Bible.
Regarding the second and third positions, I changed my position many years ago from baptism being a sign of a person's faith to one that signifies God's covenant of grace. Baptist denominations primarily hold baptism as an ordinance and as the sign of faith, as a believer's baptism. Many other Christian denominations hold baptism as the sign of the covenant. The covenantal position I believe is most consistent with the purpose of baptism and is most consistent with the OT giving of the sign of the covenant in Abraham. The male children received the sign of circumcision, which was a permanent and physical sign to them that they were to be set apart as God’s elect. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant that Abraham first received when he was called to become the father of the people of God.
When we come to the NT we see many changes because we are now a part of the "new covenant" as Jesus described. In Luke 22:20 Jesus said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Even more, the sacrifices of bulls and goats were discontinued because of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In Hebrews 8:13 we read, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." As we also know God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations, Gen. 17:4, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations." This describes how Israel would not be the only nation to receive the covenant of grace.
The new covenant is not proclaimed to just one nation but to all nations. And the sign of this new covenant was no longer circumcision but baptism, and it is not just to the male children but to the females as well. Receiving the sign of the covenant in the NT is consistent with the pattern and principle of the people of faith in the OT. But the key point is that it is the sign of the “new covenant” and not the old.
This then affirms that the sign of the new covenant is also to be given to adults when they are converted, and not just to children. But a question remains, is the sign of the new covenant to be administered as an act of faith of the parents or the children? When Christian parents have children, they are to baptize them as a sign of the new covenant, and in keeping with the covenant obligations to God for their children, just like in the OT.
The new covenant is radically different from the covenant in the OT in that the Messiah has now come. And the baptism of Jesus was a sign of his obligation with the Jewish community to prepare for the new covenant. He was not being washed from sin but he was identifying with his own identity as the Messiah, ushering in the new covenant, and giving an example for his fellow countrymen.
So why then was Jesus baptized? Jesus was identifying in his humanity as the Messiah and the Mediator of the new covenant, and submitting in all his human obedience and faith to receive this sign. We do know that Jesus was leading by example to receive the sign of the new covenant, and that he was not receiving a believer's baptism. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, and even Jesus accepted this sign.
The new covenant is radically different from the covenant in the OT in that the Messiah has now come. And the baptism of Jesus was a sign of his obligation with the Jewish community to prepare for the new covenant. He was not being washed from sin but he was identifying with his own identity as the Messiah, ushering in the new covenant, and giving an example for his fellow countrymen.
So why then was Jesus baptized? Jesus was identifying in his humanity as the Messiah and the Mediator of the new covenant, and submitting in all his human obedience and faith to receive this sign. We do know that Jesus was leading by example to receive the sign of the new covenant, and that he was not receiving a believer's baptism. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, and even Jesus accepted this sign.
No comments:
Post a Comment