Those who enjoyed the Shishko vs. White debate on baptism may enjoy the debate reported here (link).
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
12 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
I know I'm commenting on an old post, but I didn't see a more appropriate place to put this.
ReplyDeleteI am currently a Reformed Baptist but have been studying Paedobaptism recently. Right now I'm undecided on the entire issue.
I have heard Paedobaptists bring up the example of the Philippian jailer several times and point out that "having believed is singular and thus does not include the jailers family.
I just read a credobaptist response to this argument and I want to know if there is a good paedobaptist rebuttal. I'm sorry to ask you out of the blue, but I'm alone in my studies as I don't know any paedobaptists personally... so I have to ask strangers for their thoughts in order to get both sides of the issue.
The answer to the Paedo example of the Philippian jailer runs as follows:
"According to this [paedobaptist position], the singular participle “having believed” precludes the possibility that the household believed along with the jailer. But there are two problems with this argument. First, the verb “rejoiced” is singular as well, so does that mean that the household could not have rejoiced with the jailer either? The phrase “with his whole household” indicates that the household was involved in at least one of these two activities, and yet both activities are expressed with singular verbs. Therefore, paedobaptists are in error to insist that the word “believed” cannot refer to both the jailer and his household because it is singular.
Second, there are two other places in the immediate context where a singular verb is used with two nouns that take part in the action expressed by the verb. In verse 31, Paul and Silas said to the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In this verse, the verbs “believe” and “will be saved” are singular even though they refer to both the jailer and his household believing and being saved. In addition, verse 33 states that “he was baptized, he and all his household.” Once again a singular verb “baptized” is used even though both the jailer and his household were baptized. Therefore, rather than posing a problem, it fits perfectly with the previously established pattern in Acts 16:31–34 for Luke to use a singular verb to describe both the jailer and his household as believing in Christ in verse 34."
Source: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/27/infant-baptism-and-acts-1631-34/#more-1252
Can you respond to this or point me to someone who may?
Thank you.
Let's see:
ReplyDelete"According to this [paedobaptist position], the singular participle “having believed” precludes the possibility that the household believed along with the jailer."
ok ... I'd tend to recharacterize the issue as being that the text simply makes no mention of the household believing.
"But there are two problems with this argument. First, the verb “rejoiced” is singular as well, so does that mean that the household could not have rejoiced with the jailer either?"
No, it doesn't mean that the household did not rejoice.
"The phrase “with his whole household” indicates that the household was involved in at least one of these two activities, and yet both activities are expressed with singular verbs."
The word for "with [his] whole household" is a single word: an adverb (πανοικι). It modifies one of the two verbs. It's basically the word - whole-householdly.
"Therefore, paedobaptists are in error to insist that the word “believed” cannot refer to both the jailer and his household because it is singular."
Grammatically, both verbs describe the action of the man. However, the man performs one of those actions in a "whole-householdly" manner. Between the two, rejoicing would seem to be the better candidate from a theological standpoint, since how one can believe in a non-individual way is confusing, whereas how one can rejoice in a non-individual way is easy to comprehend.
"Second, there are two other places in the immediate context where a singular verb is used with two nouns that take part in the action expressed by the verb."
That may be ... but there's a difference in how that concept is expressed in those cases. In those cases, it is "he and all his" in verse 34 and it is "thou and thy house" in verse 33.
I'm not sure it matters, though. The sentence is not:
He rejoiced and believed
but
He rejoiced believing.
The adverb better modifies "rejoiced" (the verb of the sentence) because "believing" is essentially being used to explain how he rejoiced - what he was doing when he rejoiced.
"In verse 31, Paul and Silas said to the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In this verse, the verbs “believe” and “will be saved” are singular even though they refer to both the jailer and his household believing and being saved. In addition, verse 33 states that “he was baptized, he and all his household.” Once again a singular verb “baptized” is used even though both the jailer and his household were baptized. Therefore, rather than posing a problem, it fits perfectly with the previously established pattern in Acts 16:31–34 for Luke to use a singular verb to describe both the jailer and his household as believing in Christ in verse 34."
See above. The way that singular verbs are used to point to actions primarily by a first person and secondarily by a household in Acts 16:31-34 is grammatically different from the way that it is allegedly being employed in 16:35.
Ultimately, I don't see the Philippian Jailor as the main argument for paedobaptism, because I don't consider the anti-paedo (or if you prefer sola-credo) baptist view wholly unreasonable here.
-TurretinFan
This was very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Glad to oblige.
ReplyDeleteAnother question, if I may:
ReplyDeleteRecently I heard a sermon by Greg Bahnsen where he moves from 1 Corinthians 7:10-17 to build a case for paedobaptism.
Near the end of his sermon (argument) he states (note: this is an audio lecture which I transcribed, so the wording may sound awkward): "the word clean is often used in the New Testament for those who are set apart to God, those who are members of his household, those who are no longer common, part of the world, those who are not outsiders but rather insiders to God. Ephesians 5:26, what has Christ done for the sake of the Church? Verse 25, he loved the church and gave himself up for it why? Verse 26, "that he might sanctify it," making it holy, set it apart, "having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word." Cleansing and sanctification go hand and hand again, here in this text. What's of interest to us as we approach the end of our service is that Paul says that this cleansing is marked out by the washing that takes place in baptism. What is the symbol of being clean or cleansed, set apart from the world, and made holy? Well, very simply, it is baptism. The outward symbol of that inward setting apart is precisely the ritual of baptism. In Hebrews 10:22 a similar reference is made to being clean through baptism: "Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure (that's the word in Greek for clean) water." What is the symbol of cleansing? Well, in the New Testament church it's baptism. If we had time we could look at John the third chapter--you might study it this afternoon yourselves--verses 22-26: a dispute arose between the followers of Jesus and the disciples of John over purifying, over cleansing, and if you look at the text it was a dispute over the baptisms that were being performed. In Luke 11:38, 39 cleansing is called a baptism in the New Testament. In Acts 22:16 baptism is taken as a symbol of washing away of sins. Now many of you already knew this but I wonder if you connected it then with the language of 1 Corinthians 7:14. The symbol of cleansing in the New Testament is baptism, the washing of the body with water. Now that doesn't save a person automatically but it is a declaration fo the way of salvation and how God takes care of our impurity in his sight: through the blood of his son, Jesus Christ. Baptism is the way in which we symbolize cleansing and what does Paul tell us about our children in 1 Corinthians 7? They are cleansed, they are clean."
I have listened to several arguments and debates by paedobaptists and so far I have never heard anyone try to build their case or even mention 1 Cor. 7:14. Is Bahnsen way off here?
Should we also baptize the unbelieving spouse since they too are set apart and cleansed?
Thanks.
I would classify I Corinthians 7:14 as one of the less clear verses to be used in support of the baptism of infants of believers: mostly because it doesn't mention baptism.
ReplyDeleteI think most paedobaptists would accept Bahnsen's reasoning with respect to the passage.
I don't think many (if any) would suggest that the unbelieving spouse should be baptized. Thus, perhaps some of the explanation Bahnsen provides (and obviously, I'm going here only by the transcript you provided) may be slightly off-base.
On the other hand, I think most Reformed expositors would consider that Paul is at least partly referring to the fact that the children are legitimate children (not children out of wedlock). Within a framework of God blessing families, this then feeds back into the blessing of salvation for one's children that God often gives to believers.
Ultimately, there is a question that is immediately raised about the idea of one spouse sanctifying the other spouse. I've certainly heard it explained, and it makes sense, that the context that explains the matter is in verse 16 ... namely that the spouse may sanctify the other spouse by evangelization.
This is in contrast to the children that are "now" holy in verse 14 (i.e. legitimate children and outwardly part of the covenant in which their believing parent is).
Does that make any sense, or is it just my ramblings? I hope it's helpful.
-TurretinFan
That makes sense, thanks. Could you suggest some resources to study on the issue?
ReplyDeleteMe again. I was wondering if you knew anything about the Didache or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"? I have a baptist friend who is referring to it as the oldest credobaptist document. Is this correct? Does the Didache preclude the paedobaptist position?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
a) It's important to remember that the Didache was not really written by the Apostles. It is a later work (though very ancient).
ReplyDeleteb) I cannot really see how the Didache could be thought to preclude Paedobaptism. The most relevant section is as follows:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
I suppose the idea is that little infants cannot fast (at least not voluntarily). I'm not sure how strong an argument that is. On the other hand, the mode of baptism (by pouring) clearly conflicts with the mainstream anti-paedobaptist (aka sola-credobaptist) position that only immersion is an acceptable mode.
-TurretinFan
"Could you suggest some resources to study on the issue?"
ReplyDeleteSure thing, here is a two-part article from Hodge:
Part 1
Part 2
-TurretinFan
Would you update the links to the two-part article on Baptism from Hodge? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI think the article is now in a single-part form here (link)
ReplyDelete