Some Question on Baptism, Mainly for Derek
Derek,
I have been thinking about this following statement you made in our conversation with Dar:
"My main arguements would be: continuity and analogy with circucision/bar mitzvah, early practice, and misisonal fidelity - ie it seems to better communicate what we believe about salvation, and lastly the NT texts which at least do not preclude the practice."
I have a number of questions for you and some potential objections:
1. Circumcision: Is there a scriptural or traditional association of baptism with circumcision? I'm drawing a mind blank here.
2. Early practice: In precept today Graham Ford (a Presbyterian who argues for infant baptism) presented some material summarized from the Anchor Bible Dictionary which essentially removed any doubt in my mind that infant baptism was practiced by the early church. Let me summarize his summary: Adult baptism was the norm in the early church following an extended catechesis in which real life change was expected to bear fruit. Children (of the age of accountability) begin being baptized in the 6th century. It was not until the 10th or 11th century that infants began being baptized given the high rate of infant mortality and a rather robust view of original sin and its conseqences in unbaptized infant mortality. Given a high view of the church and tradition, should we not question a sacramental form that did not fully exist until 1000 years after Jesus?
3. Missional fidelity: You almost have me convinced with this one. But the more I think about it the more I wonder about this question: why should baptism be a symbol of missional fidelity? Also, it seems that your concept of mission as salvation really only includes justification and leaves out sanctification. While I am not yet convinced that we do not play some cooperative part in God's justifying grace in our lives, I am even more skeptical that we play no part in God's sanctifying grace in our lives. Thus, if I accept that Baptism should be an extension of our missional fidelity and concept of salvation (in this much thicker understanding of salvation as both justification and sanctification), then I would want the symbol to clearly include both elements of God's grace at work, irregardless of our action (given your own view of justification though not necessarily mine), and our own cooperation in God's grace. Thus adult baptism would seem to me to be the more faithful expression of such a view of salvation which includes both justification and sanctification. This would be true because one: the water exists without our ability to make it exist. Two: we are acted upon by the priest/pastor (we don't dunk or pour or sprinkle ourselves). Three: we cooperate by choosing to walk down the isle, get in the tank, and submit to the priest/pastor and water. Your view of baptism and infant baptism does not allow for any cooperation with God's grace. An infant cannot cooperate. It can only be acted upon.
4. NT Texts: I agree that the NT does not explicity prohibit infant baptism.
I ask these questions not because I am attempting to be contentious, but because I truly contemplate your answers as worthwhile. Otherwise this conversation would not be continuing into yet another thread (and thus not adding any more to your already whomping of my previous thread record! :)
Peace and grace,
Tom
I have been thinking about this following statement you made in our conversation with Dar:
"My main arguements would be: continuity and analogy with circucision/bar mitzvah, early practice, and misisonal fidelity - ie it seems to better communicate what we believe about salvation, and lastly the NT texts which at least do not preclude the practice."
I have a number of questions for you and some potential objections:
1. Circumcision: Is there a scriptural or traditional association of baptism with circumcision? I'm drawing a mind blank here.
2. Early practice: In precept today Graham Ford (a Presbyterian who argues for infant baptism) presented some material summarized from the Anchor Bible Dictionary which essentially removed any doubt in my mind that infant baptism was practiced by the early church. Let me summarize his summary: Adult baptism was the norm in the early church following an extended catechesis in which real life change was expected to bear fruit. Children (of the age of accountability) begin being baptized in the 6th century. It was not until the 10th or 11th century that infants began being baptized given the high rate of infant mortality and a rather robust view of original sin and its conseqences in unbaptized infant mortality. Given a high view of the church and tradition, should we not question a sacramental form that did not fully exist until 1000 years after Jesus?
3. Missional fidelity: You almost have me convinced with this one. But the more I think about it the more I wonder about this question: why should baptism be a symbol of missional fidelity? Also, it seems that your concept of mission as salvation really only includes justification and leaves out sanctification. While I am not yet convinced that we do not play some cooperative part in God's justifying grace in our lives, I am even more skeptical that we play no part in God's sanctifying grace in our lives. Thus, if I accept that Baptism should be an extension of our missional fidelity and concept of salvation (in this much thicker understanding of salvation as both justification and sanctification), then I would want the symbol to clearly include both elements of God's grace at work, irregardless of our action (given your own view of justification though not necessarily mine), and our own cooperation in God's grace. Thus adult baptism would seem to me to be the more faithful expression of such a view of salvation which includes both justification and sanctification. This would be true because one: the water exists without our ability to make it exist. Two: we are acted upon by the priest/pastor (we don't dunk or pour or sprinkle ourselves). Three: we cooperate by choosing to walk down the isle, get in the tank, and submit to the priest/pastor and water. Your view of baptism and infant baptism does not allow for any cooperation with God's grace. An infant cannot cooperate. It can only be acted upon.
4. NT Texts: I agree that the NT does not explicity prohibit infant baptism.
I ask these questions not because I am attempting to be contentious, but because I truly contemplate your answers as worthwhile. Otherwise this conversation would not be continuing into yet another thread (and thus not adding any more to your already whomping of my previous thread record! :)
Peace and grace,
Tom
posted by Tom Arthur at 8:36 PM
23 Comments:
Dear Falstaff,
First, who are you? It appears from you reference to Smith that you're a student here at Duke. Is that correct?
Second, welcome to the ongoing debate about baptism. In the midst of this, don't forget Wesley's exhortation to "charity in all things."
Third, I am no church historian. Nor do I have a firm grasp on the history of infant baptism. I gave a summary of a summary of the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Graham is a student here at Duke. He was giving a summary of the ABD in a class. As I understand it around here at Duke, the ABD is a rather well respected source of information. Maybe it is not.
Fourth, I have no idea what you mean when you say that we do not believe in Colosians. This sounds like a rather rash mischaracterization of a position that none of us have spoken on.
Fifth, at the end of your "shoot," I'm not sure where you end up falling in this debate. Your main point seems to be to tear down my characterization of the early church practices of infant baptism. I am uncertain past that. Though I do tend to be a bit dense.
Dear Falstaff,
Thanks for your contribution. You offer an interesting perspective that will require a bit of learning on my part to fully grasp.
I regret that you have experienced the pain you report. Different understandings of baptism have long divided many in the church, and your evident distress on this matter suggests that the issue remains divisive. For me, baptism is but one of many means of grace that our loving Lord has gifted us. I can't distinguish between infant and adult baptism in terms of their content of grace, and the possibility that an ontological transformation may ensue remains an inpenetrable mystery to me. The more I learn, the greater my own sense of mystery as I consider the sacraments. Your post brings to mind for me the Eucharist, where it is the union in our communion that makes us together the body of Christ that we the baptized are called to be. In the name of that union, I pray that we will refrain from profanity and ad hominem here as we struggle to grasp the meaning of the grace given us in all its forms.
Craig,
I think we scared Falstaff away. Also, Sarah read this post and thinks that "Falstaff" is really one of our very own, none other than TJ. She says that if its not TJ then its TJ's alter-ego, "Mephistophales."
So I think we may both have been duped.
Still waiting for Derek's response.
Tom
While the ABD is often a relatively reliable source of information (from a particular--i.e., critical [and non-confessional]--perspective) on the Bible (nobody in church history quotes it), I'm sorry to concur with Falstaff that it is dead wrong on the history of infant baptism. There are many references to the practice in the early church, but the earliest is Tertullian (late 2nd c.), who complains about the practice. He even refers to the practice of sponsors standing in and affirming the faith for the baptized. This is in On Baptism 18. We (I) don't know how common a practice this was, but it certainly existed. But it really does distress me that a whole group of students now have a completely distorted view on the history of the practice.
If you have questions about the history of baptismal practices in the early church, I would hunt down somebody who's in Prof. Keefe's baptism class this semester, where all they're doing is early church stuff.
Tom
Graham wants his name cleared up. First, he corrected me that it wasn't the ABD. It was the Enyclopedia of Religion. Second, he was only summarizing from that encyclopedia that the normative was not infant baptism. The normative was adult baptism (I mischaracterized his summary before). This means that there were exceptions to the rule (as I now understand Graham).
In this case, Tertullian may be complaining about the exceptions rather than the rule.
What's interesting is that Augustine runs arguments (I think in his anti-Pelagian works, but I can't remember exactly where) that require the validity of infant baptism (without necessarily commenting on how widespread the practice was--after all, Augustine himself wasn't baptized as an infant). He uses infant baptism as a premise, not a conclusion; he expected nobody to challenge the validity of the practice. I think it's been pointed out that this might indicate a shift in attitudes between Tertullian and Augustine, viz. that Augustine didn't expect anybody to pull out Tertullian's arguments any more.
We should also never forget that many adult believers delayed baptism because of the idea that post-baptismal sins (except for maybe one, if you were lenient) were unforgivable (except by the second baptism, martyrdom).
Tom
I think I have finally digested Falstaff's argument. Assuming the accuracy of the historic data, it seems to me that he makes a pretty strong case for his point that infant baptism was practiced very soon after the first generation of Christians. And I'd have to agree with his point that the more interesting question is "whether just the babies of recent converts were baptized or whether the babies of believing families were also baptized."
Am I right in thinking that this question is of interest specifically in light of the 'baptism as circumcision' argument?
The question seems important if, like me, you see the baptism rite as the outward sign of the circumcision of the heart. It seems to me that baptism is a means of grace whether it is done as an infant or a child, but it is meaningless without the circumcision of the heart. And, like Wesley, I think that circumcision of the heart can come before (in the case of non-children) or after (in the case of infants) the baptism rite itself is performed. The key is that the individual ultimately make a decision that the Christ will be the Lord of her/his life.
I'll go one step further. Right now I expect that, when I am in a parish setting, I will allow, although not encourage, participation of the Eucharist by those who are not yet baptized but who approach the table with a penitent heart seeking God's grace. In other words, I believe the circumcision of the heart can happen in response to preaching, teaching, works of mercy, and, yes, even in response to the Eucharist itself. I see it, like Wesley, as a conversionary rite. I understand from Michael Green that, from time to time, the unbaptized will get into line during the Eucharist and so we are faced with a decision. For me, that decision will be to welcome them to the table and then get them onto the catechesis/baptism path. That seems reasonable to me solely because I believe the key is not the rite but the circumcision of the heart.
So I agree with Falstaff's central point, insofar as I understand it. So where do I find this menorrah he wants us to smoke?
Dar,
Thanks for your astute questions, as usual.
First let's clarify our language. When you say 12 disciples, I believe you really mean 12 apostles. These were the 12 chosen by Jesus from the body of his followers as his leadership core, his most intimate followers. Clearly, the 12 suggest a re-constitution of the 12 tribes of Israel. Some reputable scholars believe that, in addition to The Twelve, Jesus has The Three (Peter, John, and James), who were his most senior lieutenants. Jesus likely had many hundreds of disciples, both male and female.
Among these many hundred disciples, we should be able to say with confidence that some were baptized. What comes to my mind immediately is the current scholarly consensus on the authorship of the gospel of John. The top scholars in that field today, as far as I can discern from reading them, agree that the Johannine communities that gave us the gospel were led by a disciple who was not an apostle (perhaps the Beloved Disciple) who was a disciple of John the Baptist originally and then followed Jesus. Indeed, the belief is that many of the followers of John the Baptist accepted Jesus as their master after John was arrested. Hence, many of Jesus' disciples were likely baptized by John. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were baptized after Jesus left John to begin his own ministry.
In terms of your #2, my opinion is that the question of baptism of disciples before Jesus' death has no bearing on their participation in the Last Supper, nor in our participation in the Lord's Supper. Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the night on which he was betrayed and told us to remember him when we eat the wine and bread together. In a class I took last year, we were told that what we currently understand as the Eucharist took many decades to evolve into its now familiar form. The various churches developed their own rites of baptism and the Eucharist and eventually these were standardized in response to heretical practices. For example, one of the earliest known rites included not just wine, but also honey, olive oil, and water.
I think the point is that, when you read here a deference to the practice of the early church, that generally means the period from Paul up until around the time of Augustine of Hippo (circa 430), for that is the period during which the practices and creeds we honor today were developed. So applying the connection between baptism and the Eucharist retroactively to Jesus' time would be inappropriate, since the connection evolved long after the first Pentecost.
As far as your #3, I believe you are focusing on the point I made about approaching the table with a repentant heart. In effect, you are asking, "what are the consequences of partaking of the Eucharist with an unrepentant heart?" You are in superstar territory there, for that question is one on which the great names of the Reformation differed. Luther said they will be damned by God; Zwingli said nothing would happen because the bread was mere bread and the wine was mere wine; and Calvin said there was no damnation but no grace either in the event. Notice that the position that I most often state is pretty close to both Calvin and Zwingli.
In terms of deciding who may partake of the bread and wine, the church has split over that question in many ways. My grandmother's Missouri Synod Lutheran church, for example, would only offer the Lord's Supper to baptized members in good standing in their local congregation. Roman Catholics, similarly, are only supposed to offer it to Roman Catholics. The mainline Protestant churches generally invite all baptized members, whether Protestant or not, to the table, provided they come in faith. The most liberal stance I know is the 'radically open table,' a policy that makes the table open to all persons, whether baptized or not, repentant or not, approaching in faith or not. A large number of Methodist and Episcopalian congregations take this stance, perhaps confusing "love your neighbor" with "radical tolerance." {I imagine that those of us who contribute here would agree when I say that I can't see any justification for that policy theologically} The position I claimed as my own sounds similarly open but is distinguished by the qualification of a repentant heart, which is the seed of faith. This is pretty close to the official Methodist position recently published and also to that of the evangelical Anglican stream. There is one other caveat; one that our mutual friend, Derek, impressed powerfully upon me. That is the disciplinary rubric: if one is estranged from one's sister or brother, one should go and make peace and be reconciled and only then return to the table. Similarly, if one is engaged in notorious sin, one should repent, and the pastor should not provide communion until that is done. This issue of repentance is why, in many traditions, we corporately confess our sin before the Lord's Supper. My wording here is a bit weak, but I believe you get the idea.
I hope I answered your questions clearly enough to be useful. If not, I am sure I can trust my colleagues to correct my aim. Blessings to you!
Still waiting for Derek...to get off his bum at campout and give me some satisfcation... :)
Tom
P.S. Dar (and others), don't confuse "Tom" with "Socratic King" Tom. We both are Tom's, but I'm the king even though I tend toward a lower theology all around (which Tom M. tends to run circles around).
Here's a news flash from Tom's mind...
I just finished reading chapter 4 in Van Harn's "Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed" (written by Richard A. Burridge and which I thought was a wonderful brief summary of almost everything we have learned at Duke thus far).
Burridge says, "We can enter into the experience [of Jesus' sonship] through being baptized into Jesus' death (Roman 6:3-4) and be adopted as sons and daughters, calling on that same 'Abba! Father!'" (59).
After I read that I thought to myself, "Here we go. Getting the same ole high church baptism stuff about baptism being the source of our adoption." But then I realized that I was reading Burridge and the tradition incorrectly. Its not baptism in wather that adopts us but baptism into JESUS' DEATH. We can have all the water we want thrown on us but if it doesn't correspond with a similar baptism in Jesus' death, then its only water and not Jesus' baptism; the Holy Spirit's not in it. Only when we die with Jesus by the power of the Spirit that we come up new creations. I think this may be what Craig has been trying to emphasize when he speaks of the "circumcision of the heart."
So there's my new way of looking at it from the other end.
P.S. Derek, hope you're having fun sleeping in a tent in a parking lot.
Here's something to think about: To what extent, if any, can we think about baptism and eucharist in terms of wedding and sex?
Let me just start by saying there are plenty of patristic authors who use wedding imagery to describe baptism.
On another side-note, I'd also like to point out that our earliest extra-canonical church order document, the Didache, expressly bars the unbaptized from partaking in the eucharist. And as far as I'm aware, the tradition is unequivocal on that question until you get past the Reformation. But of course we're all biblicists, so it's not clear what bearing that has.
Tom M.
One of my pastors once said, "If you want to just be a member of the invisible church, you're welcome to take invisible communion."
Tsk, tsk, Tom. Everyone knows there's no such thing as 'invisible communion!"
As for my offering the Eucharist to the unbaptized, I want to emphasize my earlier points: That should be a rare occurence that I would not encourage; there is the caveat that the person approaches the table with a penitent heart; and the seeker is moved into catechesis leading to baptism quickly thereafter. While this may not be in keeping with pre-Reformation tradition, it is what Wesley practiced, and I believe it is consistent with the recent Methodist consensus published under Dr. Phillips's leadership. It's also the practice of my church and my mentor, Michael Green.
As for the invisibility of a penitent heart, as Dar suggests, that works both ways. The objective act of baptism does not ensure the subjective fact of a circumcised heart.
You handle my scenario with an emphatic invitation to the table that stresses the invitation to (1) all the baptized (2)all the unbaptized who have prayed the prayer we just prayed at the end of the sermon just concluded in which we asked Christ to come into their heart and who want to sup at the table; (3) you also invite those who are estranged from others to come to the altar (something you Presbies don't have usually) and cross their arms signifying they want to receive a blessing, or stay in their seats. The priest is supposed to ask the notoriously sinful to abstain from the table privately.
Invisible church? I'll take John Wesley's and Michael Green's record of fulfilling the great commission using the scenario I describe above any day over the arguments of any scholar.
Invisible church? I'll take John Wesley's and Michael Green's record of fulfilling the great commission using the scenario I describe above any day over the arguments of any scholar.
I'd just like to point out that the early church kicked the unbaptized out of the sanctuary (!) before celebrating the Eucharist, and they did pretty well in evangelism too, I think.
So here's my question for Craig: Why can only the unbaptized who just now prayed "the prayer" partake? Why not the other unbaptized, who maybe prayed the prayer two weeks ago? Or two years ago?
And here's my question for Socratic King/Craig: Are you equating circumcision of the heart with baptism? If not, how do you see baptism as not superfluous?
Tom M.
Tom,
First, Wesley and Green are, for me, a bit more relevant examples to our times with respect to this question only because their situations were/are more like ours vis a vis the nature of the evangelistic challenge. The early church had virgin territory into which they introduced a new story, whereas Wesley/Green evangelize(d) in a world, like ours, in which the problem is more often one of re-evangelizing the complacent or lukewarm or those who have already rejected the Church. I admit that both examples are really quite good, making this a small distinction.
re: first question - I was merely giving an actual example that I heard today because it was real. Of course you are right and I would invite all who approach the table with a penitent heart, which was Wesley's language.
re: second question - Both the king and I have addressed this elswhere, so forgive me if I repeat myself in responding. Part (a) - do I equate circumcision of the heart with baptism? I don't think I am saying that, although I believe others say that what I am calling circumcision of the heart occurs at baptism. I see baptism as a sacrament in which the baptized are inducted formally into the Church catholic by a local community, signifying either an inward circumcision of the heart (in the case of those capable of making the decision to accept Christ on their own), or signifying the commitment by the community to rear the baptized in the community of faith (in the case of those incapable of making the decision to accept Christ on their own). In no way would I say it is superfluous. Rather, I believe that it one of many means of grace that God has given us. Now, if what you really mean is, "do I equate baptism with being "saved?", I'd say that justification happened for all on Calgary and is not contingent on baptism (Hays' pistis Christou argument); and that it is the circumcision of the heart, and not the rite of baptism, that begins the journey of sanctification. However, since I also insist that you can't be a Christian without participation in a community pledged to Christ as Lord of life, and I say baptism signifies the induction into such a community, then it's pretty clear that I place a high value on baptism. The most important point is that, in my view, baptism without the circumcision of the heart, either before or after the ceremony, is not effective. The subjective reality of the heart with respect to Christ is what equips us for our sanctifying journey, not the ritual.
However, since I also insist that you can't be a Christian without participation in a community pledged to Christ as Lord of life, and I say baptism signifies the induction into such a community, then it's pretty clear that I place a high value on baptism.
Would you say that one hasn't fully entered the life of that community until one is baptized? Or does the baptism simply symbolize a full entering that has already happened?
Tom M.
Tom,
First, let's reiterate that you are asking me to respond about my opinion, and not to make some authoritative doctrinal statement. I am speaking as a middler seminarian trying to sort all this out myself. Regardless of my opinion here, I will operate within the boundaries of the tradition in which I am ordained.
"Would you say that one hasn't fully entered the life of that community until one is baptized? Or does the baptism simply symbolize a full entering that has already happened?"
I believe, viewing this practically, that there may be a sequence of events in which the Spirit grasps the heart (another way of describing the circumcision of the heart) and the rite of baptism is conducted. They may go together, also, but I think more often that the sequence is ordered in either of the two logically possible ways.
The baptism,using McClendon's language, is a signpost signifying the circumcision of the heart that, I believe, has occurred or that the community hopes will occur as a result of the community's nurture in the faith. So I see baptism also as a signpost signifying entry into a particular community of faith.
To The Prince,
"missional fidelity"
What is the mission of the church? UM's say that it is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. That includes not only justification but sanctification as well. To say that baptism is supposed to be equated in some way to the mission of the church and not include sanctification as an aspect of baptism is then to disregard an element of the mission of the church, and thus, to not be fully faithful to the mission of the church. The mission of the church includes justification and sanctification. So if baptism is to be equated with the mission of the church, it should have elements that point to both orders of salvation (in the thickest Wesleyan sense).
To Tom:
Circumcision of the heart and baptism are not equated, but they ideally are related. Circumcision of the heart might be equivelent with the wedding, and baptism might be equivelent with consumation (to use your early alluded to analogy of marriage and sex...except that the "public" nature of the metaphor is entirely backwards). Baptism is no more superflous to circumcision of the heart than consumation is to the wedding. One naturally leads to the other.
A note for Dar:
Dar don't take Wilson's (the blog master) decision to want people to register as a way to keep you out. That's not his intent at all. So please send him an email, and continue in the conversation. Your input is vital. And you're not "just a layperson" as you keep saying. We're all just a bunch of geeks...too.
I'll take a stab at a couple of Dar's questions.
1. Were Jesus' 12 disciples baptized during their years with him (after He said, "Come, follow me.") and before He was crucified?
I don't know for sure. But Jn. 4:1 says: "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." Given this and other texts that emphasize the importance of baptism in the early Christian mission (not to mention Jesus' own baptism), I find it difficult to imagine that they weren't themselves baptized. What kind of baptism it was, I don't know. (Acts distinguishes between the baptism of John and the kind of baptism that Christians need.)
2. If no, then what implication does this have (if any) in relation to their participation in the Last Supper (the first Eucharist?)? Or rather, what bearing (if any) does this have on people needing to be baptized first before participating in the Eucharist?
I don't think it would have any relevance, because texts describing the early church's mission (the Great Commission, the Book of Acts) along with Paul's letters assume that all Christians are baptized. (Think of the Colossians text quoted by falstaff, or the climax of Paul's argument in Gal. 3:26-27.) Whether or not Jesus' disciples were baptized during his earthly ministry, baptism of Christians must be seen as normative today.
3. If Jesus already knew that Judas was going to betray him, yet Judas was still invited to/included in and partook (is that a word?) of this Last Supper (unrepentant?), should this have any implications on us today when deciding/"allowing" who gets to partake of the Eucharist/communion table?
Judas partaking is a particularly interesting case. In John's account, Satan enters Judas (whom Jesus has already declared unclean [13:11] as soon as he "takes" the morsel of bread from Jesus. This shouldn't be surprising, given what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:27-32. So the question is, is it only the partaker's responsibility to determine who can and cannot come to the table? I would want to say that the church leadership has at least some responsibility in the way of discipline (1 Cor. 5:12-13), which would of course include excluding people from the Eucharist. So I think that it is not in principle presumptuous for church leaders to act as "bouncers" in some ways. I don't think one can get around this in the matter of the Eucharist by claiming that it's the Lord's Table, not the Church's Table, because I don't think the NT allows that distinction.
I hope that's helpful or at least thought-provoking.
Tom M.
"The mission of the Church in Lesslie Newbigin's work (from which I draw the paradigm of mission) is 'to proclaim the kingdom of the Father, share in the life of the Son, and bear the witness of the spirit.'"
I agree with this estimation/summary of the mission of the church. So now let's flesh out for a moment what it means to do this. I'd suggest that the proclamation of the kingdom includes a proclamation that includes both something about justificaiton (as an act of God, with some level of graced cooperation) and sanctification (as an act of God with some level of graced cooperation). This is precisely what it means to bear the witness of the Spirit. The Spirit transforms our lives. Thus, if mission includes these things (both justificaiton and sanctification) and baptism is best understood as a reflection of mission, then baptism should include elements (symbols) that point to both. If baptism does not include fidelity to both aspects of the mission, then it is not a faithful symbol of the mission (though I am not yet convinced that the point of baptism is to be a symbol of mission, but I do like the idea because I think it actually makes my case stronger). Hopefully I am making myself clear.
Tom
Dar,
We're still checking (at least I am). I hope your daughter feels better soon.
Tom M.
Thanks for this, Derek. Very helpful!
I want to suggest that we be careful about saying that the Wesleyan paradigm insists on a radical distinction between justification and sanctification. That's actually an issue that Tom and I began debating last week at lunch. There's a question about what the Wesleyan paradigm really is. After reading Maddox, my sense is that Wesleyan does not make so much a radical distinction as he simply says justification, which Whitefield and the English Calvinists emphasized as an event connected with baptism, is something we don't have control over. Maddox suggests that Wesley saw the Cross as the ultimate act of prevenient grace, if I understand Maddox correctly. Like all grace, it is resistable, rather than irresistible as the Calvinists suggested. So Wesley didn't really focus on justification as much as he did the abundance of grace and the necessity of being transformed by it in real terms (sanctification). And, if you recall the quotes I posted from Maddox a few weeks ago, Wesley, like you claim now, had less of a juridical perspective because he absorbed from Cranmer and his own readings of the Cappodocians a more therapeutic view of salvation. It sounds like you are headed in a similar direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home