Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Is that still a thing (was it ever) in South Dakota?
Rarely, and only on a voluntary basis, I'm happy to say!
Baptismal Meaning and Mode - Whence the Historical and Didactic Disparity?
- Thread starter Phil D.
- Start date
Rarely, and only on a voluntary basis, I'm happy to say!
What I meant is, that if Calvin for example states his conviction that based on evidence from the Eastern churches or other sources, immersive baptism is an ancient practice, I am content to allow him whatever weight he thinks that datum merits for making that mode (or any mode) normative. He might be right, or he could be wrong; he had his sources and reasons. He married up his concerns with the text of the Bible, and lexical dependencies, with his historical knowledge--much the same process of interpretation we use now, except we have another 500yrs of collection, sifting, and analysis since his day, along with further centuries of wrangling amid the ongoing circumstances of the church's existence.
Again, that doesn't mean we're necessarily in a superior position to the old master; we're simply using the tools available to us, and our answers may be more (or they may be less) accurate on account of our reliance on such as we value. More data isn't always better than less, that might have been collected and preserved based on superior selection criteria; democracy downplays analytic skill (past and present) in favor of leveling.
There's a foolish argument that goes: "If [famous name] were alive today, he'd advocate for my views (that are different from the views he is known to have held)." We cannot say if theologian X would be a "creationist" today, or an "evolutionist" today, only because of more information or the state of the debate at the present time. We cannot say what arguments Calvin would favor when it comes to baptism, if he were engaged today in today's contests, if he would tout the same line he once did with the same order of the evidence. We only know what he wrote or said at and in his own time; his thoughts made the most sense he could of the facts for himself and for communication to others.
Did the church of the West really adopt sprinkling or pouring as baptismal modes because the climate in Northern Europe was too chilly for babies? If that was a common opinion from Renaissance/Reformation days, is it possible that conclusion (or rationalization) is completely wrong and off-base? I think there are compelling reasons out of the text of Scripture to call the supposition into question, even if some historical evidence can be produced and interpreted for its support. I have theological priorities and a prioris, because I am a believer in the essential priority, coherence, and unity of divine revelation. I quite often agree with Calvin, due in no small part to his commitment to that same basic stance.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
OK, thank you for clarifying. To relate this to the OP, I don't recall where any notable Reformed theologian indicated that they based their thinking on the apostolic mode of baptism on anything other than their understanding of Scripture. For example, in the the fuller context of the sermon I showed Calvin cites John 3:23, and elsewhere passages like Acts 8:38 (as Turretin does in the OP citation) and others as the basis for his belief on the matter. Some, like Turretin (but not Calvin), did express belief that various modes may have been used, most usually citing Acts 2:41 as an indication of that. I have also come across numerous places where early Reformed leaders expressed their belief that immersion was the apostolic practice, and justified their willingness to discontinue that practice based on issues like climate in relation to the tenderness of infants, etc. So we're usually not left to guess on those things. Again, thank you for your input!
...That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ;
How does immersion symbolize other notable aspects represented in Scripture where we are said to be "sprinkled" and the Spirit is said to be "poured out"?
I find this to be a relatively narrow look at all the things that can be taught about how baptism connects to broad theological truths throughout Sciprure and the NT.
Further, it must be noted that exegesis, prior to the Reformation, was generally used to support Church teaching and not a fully developed exegetical/theological grounding as occurred post-Reformaiton. The Reformed Confessions reflect a broadening of Biblical theological thinking. Grabbing quotes, no matter how many, from Church Fathers ignores the reality that the Reformers and the post-Reformation Orthodox read the same sources but also grounded their theological method not on received ideas first but grounded them in the Scriptures.
And let's not fool ourselves that most immersionists may strike at one aspect of baptism but leave other profound truths unaddressed. The theological poverty on baptism is not covered up simply because some use immersion. Most immersionists are content with focusing on "much water".
Finally, it must be noted that, unlike a Baptist understanding, Reformed teaching calls the baptized repeatedly back to consider their own baptism and how it may be improved upon. That is to say, that the "dying and rising" symbolized by baptism it called to mind as the Saints regularly consider mortification nd vivification as they press forward in the Christian life.
I find this to be a relatively narrow look at all the things that can be taught about how baptism connects to broad theological truths throughout Sciprure and the NT.
Further, it must be noted that exegesis, prior to the Reformation, was generally used to support Church teaching and not a fully developed exegetical/theological grounding as occurred post-Reformaiton. The Reformed Confessions reflect a broadening of Biblical theological thinking. Grabbing quotes, no matter how many, from Church Fathers ignores the reality that the Reformers and the post-Reformation Orthodox read the same sources but also grounded their theological method not on received ideas first but grounded them in the Scriptures.
And let's not fool ourselves that most immersionists may strike at one aspect of baptism but leave other profound truths unaddressed. The theological poverty on baptism is not covered up simply because some use immersion. Most immersionists are content with focusing on "much water".
Finally, it must be noted that, unlike a Baptist understanding, Reformed teaching calls the baptized repeatedly back to consider their own baptism and how it may be improved upon. That is to say, that the "dying and rising" symbolized by baptism it called to mind as the Saints regularly consider mortification nd vivification as they press forward in the Christian life.
Last edited: