Saturday, January 30, 2010

Baptisms Baptisms everywhere

Last week (and this week too) I managed to preach on 1 Peter 3 and avoid the whole Noah business (even in question time). I did fit baptism in though (for one service, it got cut in the other four because of length).

But the blogosphere is full of baptismal goodies, and , having been looked at suspiciously for my acceptance of the paedo today, thought I'd better record these gems for posterity.

Andrew Errington- ten thoughts on infant baptism

And Byron's Baptism by the book

12 comments:

Mike Bull said...

Might as well be consistent and go paedocommunion as well then...

Mike W said...

sure.

Matthew Moffitt said...

I think the Anglican church has.

Mike Bull said...

You're all nuts ; )

No, actually I believe kids should be invited to be baptized and to eat at the table - once they can examine themselves. The Old Covenant was about being silent as a lamb under the knife of the Father. The New is about the testimony of the bride. My aversion to paedobaptism only excludes infants who cannot testify or examine themselves. In the NC there are no "vows by proxy."

Alison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Moffitt said...

Yeah, so the presbyter is supposed to 'examine' each child who wants to share in the Lord's supper. re. their faith.

Just out of interest, which passages are you thinking of they talk about the the NC and examining one self?

Mike Bull said...

The Old Covenant is about the willing, silent, death of the Covenant head. Circumcision kills the ungodly offspring at the source. There will be no more Cains. It is an act of the Father.

The New Covenant is about the willing, testifying, resurrection of the Covenant body. Baptism cleanses the whole body, the Bride. This is by her own volition. It is an act of the Bride in response to the Bridegroom. That is how all the baptisms are present.

Blood, then water. We are identified with the death of the Head first, then united with the body second. This is the pattern all the way through the Bible.

Infants have not been united with the "circumcision" by faith, so they cannot be united with the government of the body. It reverses the consistent structure of God's work.

The veil of flesh has to be torn before the flesh can be resurrected.

We have to pass under the sword (Passover) before we can be given the sword (Joshua - pass-through)

Infant baptism is not New Covenant by any stretch.

Matthew Moffitt said...

So which passages?

Mike Bull said...

This is bigger than prooftexting. Though I would align baptism with access to the Lord's table, which does require self-examination.

And I know you don't have any prooftexts.

The New Covenant is a unity of the Spirit. That only comes with faith. Fire on the altar comes AFTER the animal is cut up and placed there.

Matthew Moffitt said...

Bully, I wasn't trying to attack you/make you proof text. Just 'show your work'.

Maybe there's a blog post in it for you :)

Mike Bull said...

I love an attack!

And I think there's a book in it. I am dealing with a lot of presbyterians who have good ideas on baptism, but applying them to infants makes them a bit mystical.

byron smith said...

The New Covenant is about the willing, testifying, resurrection of the Covenant body. Baptism cleanses the whole body, the Bride. This is by her own volition. It is an act of the Bride in response to the Bridegroom. That is how all the baptisms are present.

I know I'm very late to this discussion and apologies for prooftexting, but I thought the bride was washed by the bridegroom (Ephesians 5.25-27).

But maybe this isn't just prooftexting, since there seems to me to be a consistent theme in the NT of divine initiative in cleansing (e.g. Titus 3.5; John 13; 1 Cor 6.11).