Grace Interrupts Karma

Ray Ortlund shares Bono’s concise thoughts on grace interrupting karma.

Jesus Didn’t Tap

Since I have a particular interest in the seeker sensitive movement, I connected with Michael Mckinley’s disdain for the resurggence of “macho” Christianity in response to a piece in New York Times on mixing martial arts and evangelism (ex. Xtreme Ministries) as a means of attracting men to the Gospel.

What we Believe Matters (Let’s Just Not be Arrogant About It)

Great post.  I especially like these words, “we must be careful about what beliefs would cause us to unite with or divide from others. As Christians, we often make one of two possible mistakes in this area. On the one hand, we often state our beliefs so strongly that we feel like we have to divide from other Christians who believe differently from us. The sad case of Christians dividing over infant vs. believer’s baptism is an example of this. On the other hand, some Christians have such poorly defined beliefs that they will join together with people who do not even believe the basics of the gospel. Both of these are problematic.”

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses:

The whole Old Testament finds its focus in Jesus Christ, His death, and His resurrection…the Old Testament teaches us about Christ…Christ is the focus of the message of the Old Testament.  He is the One to whom it points forward, about whom it speaks, and whom it prefigures in symbols (Matthew 5.17-18; Luke 24.13-49; 1 Cor. 10.11; 2 Cor. 1.20) (pg. 5).

Thus we have a threefold task.

First, we must try to understand the law of Moses on its own terms, within its own historical environment.  God intended it to be heard and understood by Israelites who had recently been redeemed from Egypt.

Second, we must try to understand how the New Testament completes God’s story and God’s word that He began to speak in the Old Testament (Matthew 5.17-18).

Third, we must obey and apply God’s word to ourselves and our own circumstances [Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ].

Often Biblical scholars stop with the first step.  But it is legitimate to read the first part of the story again in the light of the end.  By doing so we may understand more clearly how the beginning already introduced the teachings and the tensions that are completed and resolved at the end.  Jesus Christ Himself is the center of the New Testament revelation.  Since the New Testament completes the story begun in the Old, Christ is also the center about which the Old Testament begins to speak in its preliminary way, and to which the Old Testament points forward (pgs. 7-8).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

By observing the historical and literary context of 1 Corinthians 14.1-19 and each paragraph, we observed that the main issue plaguing the Corinthian Church was the intelligibility of communication and the main concern was for the churches edification through intelligible speech. 

This was accomplished by observing both the historical and literary context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which brought forth the reason to Paul’s authoring of this letter. 

In addition to these observations, Paul established the one issue and concern with 1 Corinthians 14.1-5.  With verses 6-12 Paul elaborated upon these two matters by showing how the Corinthians would not benefit from him coming to them speaking in tongues, which was then clarified by two illustrations, and concluded by an exhortation to pursue spiritual gifts that edify the church, not themselves.  Finally, within verses 13-19, an application for corporate gatherings and personal devotion was detected while Paul expounded upon the gift of tongues.  Not only was this issue and concern addressed, but the gift of prophecy and tongues were explained in part throughout. 

In closing, may we in our pursuit of love for the others pursue the spiritual gifts that build them up, not ourselves, and bring glory to God and not personal recognition.

Here is a link to every individual post in this series:

1 Corinthians 14.1-19: Historical and Literary Context

1 Corinthians 14.1-5

1 Corinthians 14.6-12

1 Corinthians 14.13-19

If you liked this, you may also be interested in The Gift of Prophecy: The Complete Series.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

1 Corinthians 14.13-19 provides for us an application of verse 12 to the public assembly and edification of the church.  In addition to this application, Paul also emphasizes the gift of tongues by establishing its characteristics.  Finally, we become aware of what Paul would have the Corinthian Church do in their corporate gatherings.

1 Corinthians 14.13

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

In verse 13, the adverb “dio” (“therefore,” “on the account of”) not only links the present passage to the previous one, it also functions as a conclusion and application to the principle of “building up the church” (Gordon Fee, pg. 668).  

Since one is to seek the gifts of the Spirit that edify the church (1 Cor. 14.12), then the person who speaks in tongues is to pray for the ability to interpret, so that others may understand and be edified.  Therefore, this exhortation is not for one’s personal edification, but rather for the churches.

This observation flies in the face of some contemporary understandings of the gift of tongues.  For example, Oral Roberts, in his book titled Still Doing the Impossible, related he and his wife’s personal experience in praying for the interpretation of tongue:

From that time, we prayed in tongues together, and she too learned she could interpret back to her mind God’s response.  In First Corinthians 14.13-15 Paul says we can use our will to pray in tongues and to interpret back to our understanding.  We receive God’s revelation knowledge (pg. 209).

Oral Robert’s application of this text is working from a misinformed meaning of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14.1-19.  As I said before (cite), Paul was not overtly concerned with the gift of tongues per se, but rather with the edification of the church and not the individual. 

Besides, why would one need to pray for individual interpretation and edification since they are already personally edified by praying in tongues (1 Cor. 14.5)?  Moreover, one who speaks in tongues is to seek for their interpretation so that the church may be edified, not themselves (1 Cor. 14.5). 

Therefore, for one to take this text as personal revelation and edification is misinformed as to the meaning communicated by Paul.

1 Corinthians 14.14

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

With verse 14, Paul explains why one is asked to pray for the interpretation of their tongue-speaking. 

“For,” Paul writes, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays.”  Since one’s “spirit” prays while praying in tongues, then their “nous” (“mind”) is unfruitful. Since one’s mind is unfruitful while praying in tongues, then someone else’s mind would be unfruitful as well.  

Therefore, Paul explains what one is to do within the public assembly of the church in verses 15-17.

1 Corinthians 14.15

What am I do do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

Since one’s mind is unfruitful while praying in tongues, Paul explains what one is to do within the public assembly with verse 15.  

In verse 15, we learn from Paul’s experience that one is to pray and sing in the spirit as well as with their mind.  For one to pray or sing in the spirit is for one to pray or sing in tongues, and not with their “innermost deepest depths” (David Garland, pg. 639).  

Although people are to pray and sing with their spirit, the emphasis does not lie here, but rather with praying and singing with their mind.  In teasing this meaning out, Gordon Fee says that “the combination ‘but also’ (‘de kai’) indicates that the emphasis lies here.”    

With verse 15 we discovered that all are to pray and sing with their spirit as well as their mind.

1 Corinthians 14.16-17

Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?  For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.

“Thus, as in vv. 1-5 and 6-12,” notes Gordon Fee, “intelligibility and edification are tied together.  In the assembly the latter cannot happen without the former” (pg. 674).

Consequently, one who speaks in a tongue is to do so orderly and with it being interpreted, so that their message will be intelligible and that the church will be edified (1 Cor. 14.27-28; cf. 14.5, 13).  

What is more, it can be reasoned that Paul’s contrast of praying and singing with his spirit and mind are an allusion to what he would expect for the church to do in the public assembly, as well as their private devotion.  Verse 16 provides for us what one is to do within the public assembly when it comes to intelligibility and the edification of the church. 

1 Corinthians 14.18-19

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.  Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

The final throng of this passage, verses 18 through 19, provides a glimpse of Paul’s personal devotional life as well as his desires for the church.  On one hand, in verse 18, Paul expresses his thankfulness to God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them. 

Even though Paul’s expression may be hyperbolic, D.A. Carson affirms that this passage provides “no stronger defense of the private use of tongues” (pg. 105).  On the other hand, in verse 19, Paul contrasts the quantity of his tongue speaking with his desire to speak intelligibly within the church.  He explains his desire to speak intelligibly by expressing his wish for others to be instructed by what he says, rather than him speaking ten thousand words in a tongue that no one else can comprehend without interpretation.  “Thus, the section has come full circle,” begins Gordon Fee.

If Paul came to them as they wished, speaking in tongues, it would not benefit them.  He must speak in intelligible ways.  Now he affirms that he does speak in tongues – more than all of them; but in church, so that others might be instructed, he would rather speak just five words that could be understood than countless words in a tongue.  The obvious implication is that they should wish to do the same (pg. 676).

What we have observed within these final two verses is Paul’s quantity of tongue-speaking as well as his desire for intelligible communication within the church so that others may be instructed, and ultimately edified.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

By Rev. Joel Pelsue of Arts and Entertainment Ministries:

Tell me something I don’t know, right?   Well, though we live here in Los Angeles, and we see our share of fantastically ridiculous behavior, I was recently surprised and grieved to learn more about the narcissism in this city and how it is effecting our culture at large.

Now, I must confess I love the current reality TV show Celebrity Rehab which is hosted by Dr. Drew Pinsky.  It’s a less than glamorous show where cameras capture celebrities in the context of struggling to recover from their addictions and destructive lifestyles.  Now, I don’t watch it because of some desire to see people at their worst, but rather because of the honesty.  Recovering addicts are forced be honest about their addictive and pathological struggles the way that God commands us to be honest about our struggles with sin.

In May, my wife and I sat in a lecture here in Los Angeles listening to Dr. Drew Pinsky and Dr. Mark Young talk about their new book for which they are co-authors, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America. We went to this lecture to better understand some of the people we minister to here in L.A., as well as to better understand how to protect our children.  The title was intriguing, of course.  The lecture was entertaining.  The content was both surprising and heart-breaking.  At several points during the lecture, my heart was overwhelmed with grief over the dangerous situation our culture is in, and the tremendous brokenness of celebrities and their fans.

The core shift in thinking about Hollywood and narcissism was precipitated by these two men a couple of years ago.  After researching celebrities they published something quite contrary to prevalent assumptions:

“Narcissism is not a byproduct of celebrity, but a primary motivating force that drives people to become celebrities.” – Journal of Research in Personality in October 2006.

They explained that it is actually a particular type of brokenness rooted in self-loathing and self-hatred which drives them to pursue public acclaim.  Dr. Drew spoke of how all of the people admitted into his care have experienced serious childhood trauma, without exception. He recalled how he has challenged his medical students to find an exception, but the exception has not been found. He noted also that childhood trauma has increased algorithmically since the 60’s, and this alone is a major contributing factor to where our society and it’s celebrities are today.   Pinsky and Young write, “Celebrity narcissists aren’t egomaniacs with high self-esteem.  Rather, they are traumatized individuals who are unable to connect in any real way with other people.  They are driven to attain fame, with its constant stream of attention, flattery, and empowerment, because they need the steady trickle of adoring recognition to take the place of any kind of real self-love or self-respect.”

Where is narcissism at it’s height?

Reality TV seems to draw narcissists like nothing else. When fame is the goal, and talent is irrelevant – all that is required is outlandish behavior in order to become famous. The tragic part here is that they worship the idol of fame so intensely that they will sacrifice almost anything else to satiate this idol. Producers have even been shocked at the lack of embarrassment these people have after seeing their behavior when the show is aired.

How does this really effect us, as the audience? Well, There are two main responses:

On the one hand viewers may take the celebrity’s bad behavior as inspiration for acting out and feeling like the rules shouldn’t apply to them either. On the other hand viewers find this as an occasion to sit in self-righteous judgment. Both responses are spiritually dangerous because we fail to see our own sinful nature, and then fail to see these people as wounded, broken souls in need of grace.

Pinsky also points out that so much of the audience is not simply jealous of these stars, but the American public is becoming increasingly envious. Envy, unlike jealousy, involves a desire to be on the same level with those we envy. We either want to be given the same benefits as those we envy, or we want them to lose their benefits so we are all on the same level. As you can see, this becomes an incubator for aggression, and hatred as the focus becomes what we don’t have, what we deserve, and what we think others do not deserve. The scary part of this is much of our nation seems to be infected with this envy, and is living vicariously through these celebrities either in order to get a taste of “the exciting life”, or to dash the celebrities when they crash and make ourselves feel better by sitting in judgment. Just think of the response to Anna Nicole’s death, where everyone wants the details about how many mistakes she made, but no one really mourns.

Leaving the lecture, my wife and I took the elevator to the parking garage – lamenting all that is broken in this “City of Angels”.  And to be honest, I know why the lecture was so moving – I am broken too.  Christians have been quick in the past to boycott and attack these deeply hurting people- sometimes forgetting that they are people.  It hasn’t helped Hollywood’s perception of Christians, and has made it harder to share the gospel with them.  Yet, that gospel is what their brokenness yearns for.  Actually.  Truth be told.  It’s the same gospel my brokenness yearns for every day.  To be fully known, and yet to be forgiven, and loved- not just by faceless fans, or the public press, but by the God who died to make me whole again.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From the commentary of R.T. France on The Gospel of Matthew (pgs. 219-220):

Matthew 5.38

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” occurs three times in the Pentateuch: Exod. 21.24; lev. 24.20; Deut. 19.21, in each case as part of a longer list of equivalents, and in a context of formal trial….They may have been intended originally to limit the extravagant vengeance associated with an oriental blood-feud, but the OT texts do not express this intention; rather, in Deut. 19.21 the list is preceded by “Show no pity,” to ensure that judges did not mitigate the full penalty required…But by the time of Jesus appropriate financial compensation had generally taken the place of physical mutilation, so that it is probably not physical brutality as such which Jesus is here opposing, but rather the essential principle of even legitimate retribution.

Matthew 5.39

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.  But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is often quoted as opposing retaliation, a stance for which there are several parallels in the OT and other Jewish writings and among pagan philosophers.  But Jesus’ words go further than that: even resistance is forbidden, and no distinction is made between active and passive resistance, violent and nonviolent, legal and illegal…

The startling teaching of this passage is that these are bad people, intent on getting the better of the disciple, but even their admitted badness does not justify the disciple in resisting them.  The issue, then, is not whether one should stand up for good in principle, but whether one should stand up for oneself when under threat.

For illustrations follow…The first results from a slap on the right cheek.  To slap another’s cheek was a serious insult (2 Cor. 11.20; cf. Lam. 3.30) for which legal redress could be claimed (the code of Hammurabi deals with this too, in paragraphs 202-5, with penalties ranging from a small fine to the cutting off of an ear, depending on the social standing of the two parties involved), but to slap the right cheek required (if the assailant was right-handed) a slap with the back of the hand, which was far m ore insulting and would entail double damages.

This is more a matter of honor than of physical infjuy, and honor required appropriate recompense.  Yet Jesus tells the disciple to forgo the financial benefit to which he is legally entitled, to accept the insult without responding, and even to offer the left cheek for a further, if less serious, insult…In a culture which took honor and shame far more seriously than ours, this was a paradoxical and humiliating demand.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Both paedobaptists – those that adhere to infant baptism – and credobaptist – those that do not adhere to infant baptism – have said,

One of the most persuasive objections and one which closes the argument for a great many people is that there is no express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism (Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants?, pg. 15)

Although this is the case, what we will see with an argument from silence (argumentus ex silentio) is that infant baptism is presumed in the New Testament with a lack of contrary and convincing reason.

What is an argument from silence?

From the University of Massachusetts History Methodology: Outline of Procedure we read that an argument from silence “means that the thing in question [Infant Baptism] is not mentioned in the available documents.”  What is more, an argument from silence,

If [Infant Baptism] were mentioned, then with the usual qualifications it would be proved to exist…The basic point is that if [Infant Baptism] did not in fact exist, then the only trace which that fact could leave, in the evidence, is the silence of the evidence as to [Infant Baptism]. At the same time, any such conclusion must be provisional. If documents are later found that do mention [Infant Baptism], then [Infant Baptism] is after all proved to exist. A single positive may overturn any number of negatives. A single sound refutes all silences.

The strength of an argument from silence is dependent upon the following factors:

1. The likeliness of the silent argument,
2. A lack of contrary evidence, and
3. The quantities of documents sampled.

In further authenticating infant baptism, let us now consider these three points in measuring the strength of this argument.

Likeliness of Infant Baptism

As said before , we can reasonably presume that infants were indeed included in the administration of baptism due to the unity of the covenants and the similarities of circumcision and baptism.  When we consider that Jewish parents would have applied the covenant sign of circumcision upon their infant children for thousands of years, we can likely presume that they would have administered baptism in the same way.

This is why Bryan Chapell argues,

The removal of any sign of the covenant from believers’ children would have been an immense change in practice and concept for Jewish families.

He goes on to ask,

Consider how the head of a Jewish household would have reacted when others in the household (including servants and resident relatives) were baptized on the basis of his faith while his own children were denied the covenant sign (Chapell, pg. 16).

This is why we can presume that such a change in the administration of God’s covenantal sign to infants should have been recorded with either a command or example by the authors of the New Testament (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg. 936).

As we will see, this is not the case.

Lack of an Explicit Command

In refuting an argument from silence all that is necessary is the production of contrary evidence.  In providing such a source, Fred Malone argues,

The actual precepts concerning baptism can apply only to disciples because repentance and faith are necessary for New Covenant baptism.”  Malone further adds, “The precepts of confessor’s baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Matt. 28.18-20).  To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors’ baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle (A String of Pearls Unstrung)

However, I would like to argue that Fred Malone wrongly concludes that Matthew 28.18-20 presupposes faith and repentance in order to offer baptism to someone.  If I am correct in my conclusion, then the utilization of this passage as a means of justifying believers baptisms alone is invalid.

Writing in response to this objection, Dr. Gary Strawbridge provides the following reasons why this is the case (Covenantal Infant Baptism: An Outlined Defense)

Mathew 28.18-20

First, the grammar of the text itself does not necessitate that the self-conscious act of believing and repenting precedes the administration of baptism.

In the Greek, we read, “πορευθέντες (go) οὖν (therefore) μαθητεύσατε (make disciples) πάντα (all) τὰ ἔθνη (the nations), βαπτίζοντες (baptizing) αὐτοὺς (them)…”  Within the participle phrase, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς, the referent (αὐτοὺς, them) cannot grammatically be related with μαθητεύσατε,(make disciples) because this word is a verb and not a noun.  To press such a meaning would defy basic English Grammar.

Consequently, we cannot press the point that baptizing refers only to those who become disciples.

Second, to contend that baptism is to be administered to confessing individuals – from out of the nations – goes beyond the grammar of the text as well.

For instance, in verse 19, τὰ ἔθνη (the nations) is in the accusative case and is consequently the direct object of the verb μαθητεύσατε, which means it is receiving the action of the verb. Therefore, the ASV, NAS, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, and ESV translate this text, “make disciples of all nations,” not “make disciples out of all the nations.”  No preposition, such as ek (out of), exists within this text that allows us to press such a conclusion.

Third, based upon these previous two observations, a person goes beyond the text to conclude that baptizing follows discipling.

This is why B.B. Warfield said we cannot read this passage “as if the words ean maqheteusantes baptizete, whereas the passage actually standing μαθητεύσατε βαπτίζοντες, merely demands that the discipling shall be consummated in, shall be performed by means of baptism” (From Strawbridge).

A similar observation was made by Daniel Doriani, who said, “‘Baptizing them’…belongs in the context of the Great Commission.  It is an aspect of the discipleship of the nations.”  Doriani goes on to say,

Strictly speaking, Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples, not to baptize.  In the original, the command to ‘make disciples’ is modified by three participles: ‘going,’ ‘baptizing,’ and ‘teaching’ (“Matthew 28.18-20 and the Institution of Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, pg. 36)

Consequently, disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them as we “go.”

This is why I think we can conclude with Robert Reymond,

If one wishes to argue from the requirements stipulated in the Great Commission as to which view more faithfully adheres to the Great Commission, it is the paedobaptists view, since antipaedobaptists do not baptize their infant children (pg. 945).

And besides, if baptism serve’s as a sign and seal of the inward righteousness of confessing adult believers – as professed by Fred Malone and company, then this sacrament fails miserably because there are many today who have been baptized and are no longer following Christ.

In addition, there are no explicit commands to refuse infant baptism or an explicit command to baptize those who make a profession of faith alone.

Lack of Explicit Example

Not only is an explicit command lacking in refuting infant baptism, so too is an explicit example.  If anything, baptism examples within the New Testament lend further support to the argument from silence (Jonathan M. Watt, “The Oikos Formula” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, pgs. 70-84).

Many passages, such as Acts 16.15; 16.33; 18.8; (cf. Acts 11.14) and 1 Cor. 1.16 provides ample evidence that suggests infants were included in the baptism of entire households.  Although these household examples do not close the case on infant baptism, they do place “the burden of proof on those who would claim that children were not participants in oikos (household) baptisms” (Ibid., 84).

This is the case for two reasons.

First, the usage of “oikos” (i.e. household) by Luke and Paul not only preceded them, but “was adopted from he OT cultic language (particular circumcision) and employed in the Christian rite of baptism and has the same form and meaning as circumcision” (Jeremias, The Origins of Baptism, pg. 21).

Even though this does not guarantee that children were present in every household baptism, as Joachim Jeremias observed, “Paul and Luke could under no circumstances have applied the oikos formula, if they had wished to say that only adults had been baptized” (Ibid., 21-22).

What Jeremias is getting at is that Luke and Paul would have used another word or phrase if they really desired to distance baptism from circumcision.

Second, the culture of that day also implies that children were considered a part of the family (Watt, 84.).  From The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, we discover that,

The first-century household among the Greeks and Romans was defined in terms of the head of the head of the family.  The oldest male in the blood line of the family was called the paterfamilias by the Romans.  Every living thing over which he held authority was part of the household: relatives by blood, women who married blood relatives, slaves, former slaves, even livestock (pg. 82).

In contrast to the Western notion of individuality, during the time of the writing of the New Testament a strong sense of family solidarity existed.

It is for these two reasons that the burden of proof resides with those that do not adhere to infant baptism in refuting it.

So, for Craig Johnson to assume that Bryan Chapell’s wrongly assumed the presence of infants in these examples is a misnomer.  If anything Craig Johnson has wrongly “presumed” that all accounts of household baptisms follow the same pattern of Acts 11.14, where baptism follows faith.

This presumption is refuted by Acts 16.30-34 alone.  Dr. Chapell pithily observed of these verses,

The account of the baptism of the Philippians jailer’s household is particularly instructive because of the precise description supplied by Luke, the writer of Acts.  Luke says that all of the jailer’s household was baptized (v. 33), but then he uses a singular verb to describe who rejoiced and believed in God that night (v. 34).  The jailer himself believed (singular verb) and his whole house was baptized.  Sadly, this important distinction in the account is not reflected in some of our modern translations (pg. 19).

Moreover, the existence of some examples of baptisms that followed a confession of faith does not ipso facto (as a result of a particular fact) rule out infant baptism. This is the case for three reasons (Reymond, pg. 936).

1. There are only a few instances of baptism being administered within the New Testament (John Murray, Christian Baptism, pg. 69),
2. Those baptized in the New Testament are considered first generation believers.  As a result, three fourths of the recorded baptisms logically include adult individuals who were entering into a New Covenant (R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pg. 228.), and
3. The remaining one fourth of all recorded baptisms in the New Testament includes the entirety of homes (Ibid., pg. 228).

With this being the case, we can reason that children were included within the administration of baptism in light of the proofs provided above.  In addition to the lack of contrary evidence and Scriptural examples lend further credence to infant baptism.

History

When considering the sampling of evidence from the first four hundred years of church history, the strength of the argument from silence is enhanced.

In concluding his work on Infant Baptism: In the First Four Centuries, Joachim Jeremias’ stated,

A thorough examination of all the sources makes it quite clear that in this whole period of four centuries there were to be found only two theologians who advocated a postponement of baptism, both of them moreover, with reservations (pg. 98)

This historical evidence is further validated in Jeremias’ response to Kurt Aland’s rebuttal in The Origins of Baptism, as well as Greg Johnson’s The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West.

This massive sampling of church history enhances the argument from silence and calls into question the refusal of infant baptism.  The administration of baptism to infants is not illogically deduced, but rather handed down from the Apostles themselves.  In fact, writing in the third century the early church scholar Origen once said,

The church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children (Robert Rayburn, What About Baptism?, pg. 52)

May we too follow within the footsteps of the apostolic witness.

(For further historical evidence, in particular the witness of the early church fathers, see Jeremias, pg. 41; Reymond, pgs. 943-944, and Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pg. 635).

Other Parts of my series on An Apologia of Infant Baptism:

Formulating a Doctrinal Position

Covenant: Defined and Delivered

Unity of the Covenants

What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean?

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

John 20.22

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 

Many that adhere to the Classical Pentecostal Tradition use this verse as one of various means in justifying their position on the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Which I used to believe in myself).  For those of you that are unfamiliar with the baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is best explained by those who adhere to it.   From the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement we learn this:

It is a special work of the Spirit beyond salvation…Though many non-Pentecostals teach a baptism in the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues, the position of the Assemblies of God is clearly declared in Section 8 of its Statement of Fundamental Truths: “The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4).” The evidence always occurred (and still does today) at the time believers were baptized in the Spirit, not at some indeterminate future time.

What does John 20.22 have to do with the baptism with the Holy Spirit? 

To answer this question let’s consider the words of Ralph Riggs, from his now Classic Pentecostal book The Spirit Himself, who said of this passage:

We can now understand more clearly what happened to the disciples on the night of the resurrection when Jesus said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”  This Spirit of the resurrected, glorified Christ was now available for human hearts, and Jesus hastened to impart this life to His disciples.  The Spirit of God’s Son, the Spirit of Christ, as the Spirit of conversion, came into their hearts on that occasion.  He had died and become a glorified being in order that He might come into the lives of all believers…John 20.22 was the first step of the Spirit’s incoming.  The final fulfillment of John 14.17 came on the day of Pentecost (pgs. 44-45)

From this passage can we reasonably deduce such a meaning?  Can we say agree with Ralph Riggs that the disciples were converted at this moment? 

Based upon the larger context of this passage I do not believe that we can.  What I believe we can conclude is that this episode served as a foretaste of what was to come at Pentecost.  For Jesus Christ had not yet been exalted which was the moment the Holy Spirit was to be mediated in a new way. 

The Larger Context of the Gospel of John

In John 7.37-39 we observe that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the Spirit.  As the mediator of the Spirit, the Spirit was not to be given through Christ until He was glorified.   This is clearly enunciated in the 39^th verse of this chapter, which reads:

Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Italics mine).

Not only do we see this here, we also observe that the Spirit was not to be poured out until the completion of Jesus’ work in John 16.7.  We read here,

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.  But if I go, I will send him to you (Italics mine). 

What was implied by Jesus at this point by “going away” is the same as Him being glorified.  It was not until this point in time that the Helper (i.e. the Spirit, cf. 14.16-17; 14.26) would come (Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, pg. 366) 

The Larger Context of the Bible: The Book of Acts

Even though Ralph Riggs says that Jesus had already been glorified, I do not believe we can make such a conclusion.  What we discover in the Book of Acts is that the Spirit was not poured out until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.1-4) which occurred after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven (Acts 1.9-11).

We see this no clearer than in Acts 2.32-33, which reads:

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are witnesses.  Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

It is clear that Peter referenced the events of Pentecost as the pouring out of the Spirit that Jesus had promised upon His exaltation.  Consequently, since Christ had not been exalted, the Holy Spirit had not bee given, which means that Jesus could not have breathed new life into the disciples as suggested by Mr. Riggs. 

If this is the case, how then are we to understand this passage? 

In the End…

We must understand the event in John 20.22 as a foretaste – a prolepsis – of what was to occur on Pentecost in fullness later. 

In explaining this event as a foretaste, Stanley Grenz said,

In order to clarify the close link between the Spirit and Jesus, John reminded his readers of a proleptic event that occurred prior to Pentecost: Jesus breathed on them thereby symbolizing the future outpouring of the Spirit that he would soon effect as the exalted Lord (Ibid., pg. 369).

Besides, it is difficult to deduce from this passage two different impartations of the Spirit which would assume two different ascensions since the pouring out of the Spirit is directly tied into the glorification of Jesus Christ (cf. John 20.17). 

What is more, there is no evidence indicating that the disciples entered into their service as Christians since they had not yet been endued with power by the Holy Spirit who was not yet given (Acts 1.8) (G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pg. 325).  This is why we can comfortably conclude that John 20.22 does not indicate an initial indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or the first of two steps towards the baptism with the Holy Spirit within the Classical Pentecostal Tradition. 

What we can conclude is that this incident was a foretaste of what was to come in fullness later.  

Lesson Learned from John 20.22?  Simple: Text without Context is Pretext.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

My friend Nathan Cherry, Connection Pastor of New Hope Church, is a regular blogger for the Family Policy Council of West Virginia.  He recently began a series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  I will look to regularly update this as I remember.  If not, then you should go ahead and subscribe to the Family Policy Council’s Blog.  The following are the three parts currently available:

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was Established and Distorted in the Garden

Properly Defining Masculinity and Femininity

Gender Roles Defined According to Scripture

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post: