zachary snow
zachary snow's blog
 119stars  |   12readers
View profile|View all posts| Follow this blog
Day 80 Part 1 The Gospel, Justification, and Death to Sin
||August 26, 2007|963 reads
 

To add a comment to "Day 80 Part 1 The Gospel, Justification, and Death to Sin"
Andy Monro
August 27, 2007

Zach wrote: "I have to pick on infant baptism here for just a minute. Can we say that a baptized infant has died to sin?"

Sure, why not? Infants are models of conversion.

 

18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 18:17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
zachary snow
August 27, 2007
Jam...I'm glad I can count on you for discussion ;-) I knew you wouldn't be able to resist jumping on that one. I knew from our last discussion that you would hold this view. However, I have some Presbyterian friends (and family) who say that they do not believe that infant baptism has regenerative effects. What I'm saying, is that if Paul here is referring to water baptism, then whoever has been baptized has died to sin and lives to Christ. In other words, they have been regenerated. Thats why I wanted to point this out. It forces us to take sides. Where there was ambiguity to me before, there is none now. This forces to either view water baptism as sacramental and salvific (as I'm sure you would have no problem with), or it makes us rethink what baptism means (as is the case for me...at least at this point). There doesn't seem to be any grey area anymore.
Barrett Young
August 27, 2007
Zach, Zach, Zach. Always gotta take the digs at us don't you! :) I wonder what your own thoughts on this are, how closely external baptism is tied to internal baptism. If you interpret the baptism in this verse as the internal baptism of the believer (therefore, all baptized are truly saved) then it becomes a point of view on whether this (the internal) happens before (credo) or after (paedo) the external water baptism.

Both of us hold that someone can be lost and be baptized. Even in your credobaptist hopes of a fully regenerated baptized body, you have to admit that people do make it in that aren't regenerate.

I think this discussion could go round and round till glory. I personally have not sided either side, although I am much less opposed to PB than I used to be. Interestingly enough, Piper and Grudem and Dever and Duncan and a whole host of other pastors are discussing the implications of PB and communion right now. It is very interesting how even among a bunch of CBs, there are many views re: PBs.
Andy Monro
August 27, 2007

The Reformed One wrote: "I wonder what your own thoughts on this are, how closely external baptism is tied to internal baptism."

Which verses refer to "external baptism" and which ones refer to "internal baptism"?

Barrett Young
August 29, 2007
Just some thoughts on the difference between external baptism and internal baptism, of which it is difficult to find verses since the word "baptized" is used in both cases. It's interesting that by arguing some of these, I'll actually seem to be reinforcing Zach's argument against PB...

1) If baptism is the New Covenant form of circumcision, then we would have had to believe in circumcisional regeneration in the OT, meaning that almost everyone is saved today. (Jew, Muslim, Christian)

2) When John talks about those that went out from us in 1 John 2:19, it was the going out from them (their abandonment of faith) that proved they were not of the true faith. If their abandoning was what prove it, then we can safely assume that in every other aspect, they appeared like real Christians, meaning they were baptized. If they were baptized, and regenerated, they would not have gone out.

3) If the command "Repent and be baptized" was given, and repentence preceeds baptism, then they must have already been regenerate in order to repent. Repentence does not come from stony, dead hearts. It comes from living regenerated hearts.

4) God does not regenerate anyone that is not kept for salvation. There have been countless people that have been baptized but we can be 100% they were not finally saved. Not only in history, but present day. Regeneration means good fruit follows. I'm not talking about people that die in a period of backsliding, I'm talking about people that were baptized and not another minute of their existence showed any fruits of regeneration.

Now these are just a few thoughts. I'm sure you've heard them all before and can poke holes in them, but I submit them as my understanding as of now.

And if this has been discussed elsewhere (hasn't everything?), please provide the link, and I'll go follow the argument there. I'm sure this isn't what Zach had in mind for this blog. :)

Grace to you
Barrett
zachary snow
August 29, 2007
Barret...we had a previous conversation here that will let you know where we are already coming from...I think that conversation might still be going on...

Josh...this conversation started before ours :-)
Mike n Laura
August 31, 2007
This discussion is an enjoyable read -- really thought provoking -- never losing sight of your brotherhood!!  ReformedOne, I especially appreciate your #4.  And don't forget, often there is no external difference between authentic fruit of regeneration and counterfeit fruit (many will say Lord Lord did we not....).

Zach, I've got some reading to do, as in much of your 1-79. These have been really great, when I've had the time to read them. Perhaps your next series could be a read thru the Bible in 365 days?
zachary snow
August 31, 2007
Mike...I think 365 blogs in as many days would be overwhelming :-) I would like some ideas of what to do when I'm finished with these though. There's really only 88 days worth of readings/blogs. The next blog (the 2nd part of day 80) will get to one of your favorite topics...freedom. Maybe you could read ahead :-) I think I'll be picking up in Romans 7.

As always...thanks for the comment!
Barrett Young
August 31, 2007
How about a verse-a-day blog through the Bible! With over 31,000 verses, this should take 85 years. Anyone up for it? You want expository blogging, you're going to get it! YES!!!

Even a chapter-a-day will take over 3 years. It is quite an undertaking, but I would definitely need an interleaf Bible for that. I think we'd all be surprised how much we will see if we took a whole day to ponder one chapter at a time. I think there is benefit to speed-reading through (in say, 30 days) or slowly reading through (in three years).

With 60 years ahead of me (God willing), I look forward to a lifetime of exploring God's Word. I think we must always remember to return to the Book, no matter how many other books we read in the meantime. I think the greatest thing we could work toward is to be a People of the Book.

I regret the days that I forsook the written Word in pursuit of experience. My thinking used to be that reading (and theology) would detract from my experience, but it has has only driven me deeper. Christians that forsake the reading of the Word in favor of the experience of the Spirit or the actions of Christ divorce three things that do not detract, but are meant to work together in a Trinitarian work on our souls.
zachary snow
August 31, 2007

Good thoughts Barret,
I was thinking of maybe doing a book of the Bible chapter by chapter to start. Verse by verse is something maybe a little farther down the line. I'm not sure I'm there yet :-) One thing I've learned is that it is almost impossible to go through just one section of scripture by itself. There is always another scripture that you have to read to understand the one you are reading :-) Let scripture interpret scripture right?

Barrett Young
September 02, 2007

Zach,

Better hurry on starting that verse-by-verse... with 85 years till completion, it isn't something any of us should put off too long. Personally, I blame our parents. They should have started us on the verse-a-day reading plan immediately when we learned to read. :)

I agree with you on referencing other Scripture. Too often, we can get tunnel vision. And the more we read, the more we'll think "I've read that somewhere else. What verse was that?" 

zachary snow
September 04, 2007
Barret,
One verse a day when a child first learns to read is a good idea...I would add that they should probably memorize a verse per day. It wouldn't be long before they could quote entire chapters.