Paedo-Baptism Answers John 13:1-17
- Thread starter Braden
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The Apostles had the sign of covenant already in their flesh; why would they need water? As well, Christ had not yet given out the command to 'baptize'.
How is it you come away with the idea that this was a water baptism and not simply, a foot washing? It was typical in Jewish culture to offer a basin of water to cleanse one's feet upon entering a home.
How is it you come away with the idea that this was a water baptism and not simply, a foot washing? It was typical in Jewish culture to offer a basin of water to cleanse one's feet upon entering a home.
I'm becoming more convinced that the Baptism of John was not actually New Covenant Sign Baptism. I read an article from the CRCNA and tend to agree with them that this was a special kind of old covenant preparatory baptism, and not actually the sign of the New Covenant which was instituted up to 3 years after the death of John.
EDIT: Hold on, you say in their flesh? Are you saying that those circumcised didn't need New Covenant Baptism?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes, I am. Why would they? Do u see any mass baptisms of OT Jews in the NT? The Apostles were most likely never baptized.
can you provide sources? This would definitively, once and for all settle the matter in my mind for me. So long as John's baptism is truely show not to be Christian baptism. I'm not 100% sure on that, since Calvin, Matthew Henry, and even many Covenanters seem to disagree with me. Got a soft spot for the Covenanters.
EDIT: Surely Pentecost is sufficient proof that OT Jews needed to be baptised?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Sources of what? The NT is silent about the baptism of the Apostles; in my opinion, because they already had the sign in their flesh. As well, if they had been baptized, this would include Judas, which is problematic for the Credo baptist.
I don't believe John's baptism was Christian but a ceremonial washing that Levites were doing.
The above is the transitional period of signage; it was after Christ's ascension and command to go and make disciples, baptizing them...
But if the sign in the flesh was sufficient, why was it sufficient for the apostles but not the Jews at Pentecost?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Because the signage changed as per Jesus' command.
But only for the Jews at Pentecost, but not the apostles?
The way I'm hearing you, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, is that the Apostles already had the sign in their flesh, and therefore didn't need to be baptized when the sign changed, and the Jews at Pentecost already had the sign in their flesh, but for some reason did need to be baptized when the sign changed.
Why is it one rule for some, and another rule for others?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
When was the commission given? Did Christ and the Apostles keep the last day of the week sabbath?
Because, simply of timing, given Christ's new command on Matt 28.
Again, consider the change of sabbath day from the last day of the week to the 1st.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to spell it out for me. I'm not understanding a word you're saying anymore. I think the connections are clear in your mind, but you might need to help me to see them.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Forgive me; You said, "But only for the Jews at Pentecost, but not the apostles?"
I am using the change of the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first as an example in timing; the Apostles and Christ kept the sabbath day on the last day of the week. As we both know, that day changed to the first. In the same way, the signage changed in relation to the covenant from bloody to water, after Christ implemented the change in Matt 28, when he gave the commission.
I am using the change of the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first as an example in timing; the Apostles and Christ kept the sabbath day on the last day of the week. As we both know, that day changed to the first. In the same way, the signage changed in relation to the covenant from bloody to water, after Christ implemented the change in Matt 28, when he gave the commission.
Ok, I think I might see.
But the apostles, if they were never baptized, were obviously never baptized because they already had circumcision. But the Jews at Pentecost also had circumcision. Why did Peter, who himself was never baptized by basis of his circumcision, require baptism of those other men who also already had circumcision?
It would go something like this:
Peter: "repent and be baptised!"
Jews: "but we're circumcised."
Peter: "Yes, but be baptised."
Jews: "Ok. Done. Are you Baptised?"
Peter: "No, I'm circumcised, I don't need it."
Isn't that a double standard?
Sorry if this takes us too far afield from the OP. But since this topic has come up more than once, I thought I'd just mention that John's baptism is regarded as Christian baptism by many 17th century reformed authors (over against the Roman Catholics who denied it). See as examples:
https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/04/24/was-johns-baptism-christian/
https://www.reasonablereligion.com/...adges-of-Christianity-3---The-Baptism-of-John
https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/04/24/was-johns-baptism-christian/
https://www.reasonablereligion.com/...adges-of-Christianity-3---The-Baptism-of-John
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Was John wrong in calling out all of the people to the Jordan and saying the same thing? Yes, it is a different washing, but none the less. The people at Pentecost knew, based on John the Baptist's washings, what Peter was actually saying; as well, Peter was an Apostle who walked with Christ and performed miracles, etc. The hearers at Pentecost knew this of Peter. He didn't need a washing. The People at Pentecost were Jews who were coming to faith as Christians. Pentecost was not a Christian event. It was an OT festival.
Thank you.
I'm aware that many reformed affirm that John's Baptism is Christian, but tradition is divided and many reformed also deny John's Baptism is Christian Baptism.What Pentecost was doesn't matter. If Baptism is a covenant sign, then all who are in covenant with God need it. If that is not true for the apostles on the basis of their circumcision, then it is also not true for the Jews at Pentecost on the basis of their circumcision.
Unless there's a reason why circumcision can stand in for baptism in some, but not others.
EDIT: What I'm asking is why the apostles' circumcision let them off baptism, but the other jews' circumcision didn't let them off baptism. They were obviously not different circumcisions so why do they operate differently? One covers baptism, the other is insufficient to do the same.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Again, timing and circumstance. The Apostles walked with Christ. The hearers at pentecost, were coming to hear Peter speak, called to the carpet of Chritianity and commanded to repent, believe, accept, receive, and be baptized away from their false Judaism.
Consider that John the Baptist was not telling people that their circumcision was not efficacious covenantally, but that their circumcision meant nothing without true repentance; after they had been baptized by John unto repentance, don't think for a minute that the sign of their circumcision meant nothing, due to that washing. For example, if a Proselyte had been baptized by John, would he have still needed to be circumcised into the Jewish religion?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Being 'in covenant', as I mentioned earlier, has two heads; internal and external. Jewish believers were in the internal side; Non believers , i.e. jews who rejected Messiah, were in the external side. So, baptism by John was the acknowledgement that this water is for repentance and faith in the Messiah to come-all of whom the Jews, generally rejected, given the time.
What I'm
But if baptism is the covenant sign, then everyone needs the covenant sign. If we're going to say everybody except those who have been circumcised, then that would indeed exclude the apostles. But it would also exclude the Jews at pentecost.
Regardless of timing, either you have the sign or you don't. If circumcision is an acceptable form of the sign, then it needs to be acceptable for everyone who has received it. So you can't balk at the thought of baptising those apostles who have been circumcised, but insist on baptising the Jews who have also been circumcised.
Unless we want to argue that the apostles' circumcision is made legitimate by their proximity to Christ, and the circumcision of the Jews is invalid because they didn't spend every day with Jesus, it is the exact same circumcision, the exact same sign of the exact same covenant, with the exact same conditions and the exact same promises, and cannot logically be enough for some elect and worthless for others.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
You're not following me.....Were the Jews @ Pentecost, believers in Christ? No. Had the sign changed prior to Pentecost? Were the Apostles Christians already, under the old sign? Yes. Why would they need to be baptized?
The sign of covenant is only efficacious to those who have faith in Christ. If I was a Jew, circumcised on the 8th day and didn't believe by faith in Christ, the sign is just a cutting. If I came to faith after the sign changed, I should receive the new sign as a testament to my repentance and faith in Christ.
No, it is not based on proximity, but on their faith towards Christ and the fact that the sign had not yet changed to water as Christ had not yet given the command.
So your position is that the thing which invalidated the Jews' circumcision was unbelief?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes. Is baptism worth anything to those who do not believe? But to digress, timing here is important as we need to acknowledge the timing of Pentecost and the changing of the guard.
What I don't understand, then, is why the covenant sign is to be administered once, prior to faith, and is then valid upon one's coming to faith. Whereas in your scenario, the covenant sign is administered, the man comes to faith, and the sign is re-administered.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The distinction u are missing here is the timing and history of the church; I am with you. The sign should be only placed once. But given this timeframe, the sign changed and the new command of Christ warranted such a repetition when these OT Jews came to true faith.
But they already had the sign. The sign never needed to be re-applied when sign-bearers came to faith previously; it was sufficient. What changed? The form of the sign is different, but if the substance is the same why is there seemingly a new rule?
Why shouldn't I be re-baptised since I have come to faith as an adult, even though I was baptised as a child?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ughh, the great commission and Christ's command to apply water??? See Matt 28
The NT sign is washing. Christ died and bled for us, hence, no longer do we cut ourselves and bleed.
Because, you have already had the sign applied as a child; as u have said. One only needs water placed, once. Now, if u were a Jew, who had been circumcised on the 8th day, u would need to be baptized.
Branden, greetings from across the Tasman. Looks like you are on a similar journey to me.
I have recently been reading Vos' "Ministry of John the Baptist" in his "Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation". He argues that John was a minister of the Old Covenant, even at the end of the OC. I found his comments interesting:
- John was the recapulator of the Old Covenant
- He was the last of a dispensation in which the holiness and righteousness of God were strongly emphasised
- He lived a life of a Nazerite, one of the OC forms of consecration to the Lord's service
- He was, as it were, a re-establishment of Elijah - the stern OT prophet
- Our Lord says in Matt 11:11 "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." This is because the kingdom itself is far superior to the typical stage of theocracy.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Were they not all baptized by John? I agree with everything else you say. Even Jesus was baptized by John in the greatest public display of Trinitarian baptism ever.
"and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'"
Luke 3:21-22 ESV
Luke 3:21-22 ESV
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Hi Ed,
When I say 'baptized', I am referring to Christian baptism; I am undecided about John's baptism, whether or not it is Christian baptism. I am leaning towards, it not being. Acts 19 has me a bit stumped
- Status