tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post3656208145245960412..comments2023-10-28T09:17:35.685-04:00Comments on Butterfly House: The Grace of Baptism -- Part 4Jeff Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-71727096668316393302010-08-25T19:57:07.053-04:002010-08-25T19:57:07.053-04:00To explain the reasoning on Col. 2: What cleanses ...To explain the reasoning on Col. 2: What cleanses in Col 2 is clearly the "circumcision done by Christ" -- Spirit circumcision.<br /><br />But the plain fact of choosing that language brings in the physical act as a symbol of the spiritual. We remember that Abe received circumcision as a sign of the righteousness (= "cleanness", justification, purity from sin) that he had by faith.<br /><br />Likewise with baptism.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-766029545530278432010-08-25T19:46:27.274-04:002010-08-25T19:46:27.274-04:00I didn't really answer your question -- why do...I didn't really answer your question -- why do I think that Rom 6 refers to water baptism (together with Spirit baptism, which is clearly in view)?<br /><br />For two reasons:<br /><br />(1) The train of thought is similar to Col. 2.12, in which we were "circumcised with Christ" when we were baptized, and<br /><br />(2) Because the earliest church interpreted it that way.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-2468238447228623942010-08-25T19:42:17.162-04:002010-08-25T19:42:17.162-04:00Praise the Lord, David. I'm so glad it's ...Praise the Lord, David. I'm so glad it's been helpful to you.<br /><br />I believe Romans 6 to be speaking of water baptism as a symbol of Spirit baptism: both together.<br /><br />It is an example of Ursinus' "improper use" (or sacramental use) of language.<br /><br />It's similar to "With this ring, I thee wed": You actually wed the bride by taking a vow, but the ring symbolizes it to such a degree that the vow and the ring are interchangeable.<br /><br />JeffJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-10184698438032733032010-08-24T18:56:13.651-04:002010-08-24T18:56:13.651-04:00Jeff,
This has just been a marvelous series. I c...Jeff,<br /><br />This has just been a marvelous series. I can’t thank you (or God) enough. I feel as though many layers of fog have been lifted from my understanding of the ‘truth’ of baptism. Also, I finally see why you (reformed) have so little regard for the ‘Baptist’ view. To the extent that you have covered it here, I agree with you.<br /><br />I just kept thinking as I followed your argument ‘this isn’t so hard if only we could describe it without words. The words are killing us.’<br /><br />I just wanted to posit one question. You had your hypothetical preacher say in regard to Romans 6:3: "You were buried with Christ through baptism. But you weren’t really, and we mustn’t say this." You are clearly seeing ‘water baptism’ here, no? But, I see Paul talking to actual believers (not that he knows who they are). He knows that whoever they are they have actually died to sin. And, he knows that they have actually and truly been ‘united/baptized’ with Christ. How can we be sure from the context that he had any view here toward water (even acknowledging it is truly the sign and seal of the promises) and not totally and simply to spirit baptism?David Weinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-25562726767669401092010-08-21T09:54:14.061-04:002010-08-21T09:54:14.061-04:00On further reflection, here's a thought:
Roge...On further reflection, here's a thought:<br /><br />Roger: <i>My single continuing problem with your thesis is the idea that God gives benefits based on a future event. I cannot find a single instance of this in the Bible. God never ever acts on the basis of a future event, but always on the basis of present or past events.</i><br /><br />I agree with you. The justification of an adult is not on the basis of his future baptism.<br /><br />But here's the thing: the justification of <i>anyone</i>, adult or child, is never on the basis of baptism.<br /><br />And that's the idea I wanted to convey in part 3. The efficacy of the sacraments is not a normal cause-effect, action-state kind of efficacy. Instead, it is an efficacy of a message. Baptism <i>says</i> something (as opposed to <i>does</i> something) ... and when the message is received, then baptism has had its effect.<br /><br />Let me encourage you to meditate further on baptism's role as a seal of the Gospel message. For example: why is it that the sacrament is not a sacrament <i>unless</i> the Word also be preached with it? Or, what reasons do the Reformers give for the salvation of the unbaptized, such as the thief on the cross?<br /><br />I think the missing link here is the jump from normal cause-effect to sacramental efficacy. The Reformers seemed very determined to distinguish between those two.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-7741133345950951822010-08-21T09:27:57.267-04:002010-08-21T09:27:57.267-04:00Thanks for the thoughts, Roger.
I do think there&...Thanks for the thoughts, Roger.<br /><br />I do think there's more than merely unfounded assumptions going on wrt the timing of justification. But that's probably another series.<br /><br />JRCJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-45384214698656416252010-08-21T03:20:12.491-04:002010-08-21T03:20:12.491-04:00Very good work Jeff. My single continuing problem...Very good work Jeff. My single continuing problem with your thesis is the idea that God gives benefits based on a future event. I cannot find a single instance of this in the Bible. God never ever acts on the basis of a future event, but always on the basis of present or past events.<br /><br />It reminds me of the anti-election argument that God elects us because on his knowledge of future free will decisions made by us.<br /><br />Grammatically speaking there is nothing in the confessions or scripture that requires us to think that the moment of faith is the moment of the reception of salvation. To say that we are justified by faith in no way necessarily implies that we are justified when we believe.<br /><br />That is an assumption based upon the modern evangelical idea of making a decision for Christ, whereby the moment you say your sinners prayer is the moment of your forgiveness, without reference to sacraments.<br /><br />In short, your idea of faith as the moment of salvation is based on an unrecognized theological assumption, and a grammatical mistake.<br /><br />Warm regards<br />RogerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com