What Was Tongues? (Part 1) By Nathan Busenitz

II. BUILDING THE CESSATIONIST CASE
1. The What Question: [The “what” question refers to what the gifts were as described in the New Testament. It differs from the “when” question, which refers to when the gifts ceased in church history.]
[Contention:] The miraculous gifts of the Spirit as described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 are the same in kind as the miraculous phenomena displayed in the book of Acts.
TONGUES
A. The Charismatic Definition: The gift of tongues primarily consists of a devotional prayer language which is available to every believer. This prayer language does not necessarily consist of an authentic foreign language (and in fact usually does not). Rather it consists of a heavenly, spiritual language which, by definition, does not need to conform to the linguistic structures of earthly, human languages. As long as the tongues are used in private praise and prayer, they do not need to be interpreted.
While Acts 2 does explicitly say that speaking in tongues consists of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker, there is no reason why this text is necessarily the standard text on defining tongues. First Corinthians 12–14 seems to broaden tongues to include angelic and spiritual languages and not just human foreign languages. Thus 1 Cor. 12–14 provides the basis for our understanding of tongues, with Acts 2 providing one way in which the gift was manifested (specifically on the Day of Pentecost) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 220–21; Oss, Four Views, 280).
Adrian Warnock: “One thing that most of us agree on is that there are different kinds of tongues…. I think it is fair to say that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are different from those of Acts 2. Paul himself speaks here of different kinds of tongues. It is at least possible that at different points in this passage [1 Cor. 12–14] Paul is talking about different forms of tongues.” (http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2006/11/blogging-gifts-tongues-and.htm)
B. The Cessationist Response:
I want to take just a moment to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.
The Miraculous Sign of Tongues Described in Acts
Some Observations:
1. Acts – The miraculous tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tongues is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7).
2. Acts – Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. This indicates that the tongues of the Apostles (in Acts 2) was not limited just to the Apostles, but was also experienced (at least) by both Cornelius’s household (Acts 10) and the disciples of Apollos (Acts 19).
1 Corinthians – Paul, as an Apostle, possessed the gift of tongues (14:18). Yet he recognized that there were those in the Corinthian church who also possessed the gift.
3. Acts – The miraculous ability, as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in other tongues (meaning foreign languages) (2:4, 9–11).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is described as a speaking gift (12:30; 14:2, 5). The fact that it can be interpreted (12:10; 14:5, 13) indicates that it consisted of an authentic foreign language, similar to the tongues of Acts 2. (Paul’s direct association of tongue-speaking with foreign languages in 14:10–11 and also his reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 strengthens this claim.)
4. Acts – The primary word for tongues in Acts is “glossa” (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6), although it is also described with the word “dialekto” on two occasions ( 2:6, 8 ).
1 Corinthians –As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is “glossa” (12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39), though Paul also uses the term “phoneo” twice (in 14:10–11).
5. Acts – It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.
6. Acts – It is closely connected with prophecy (2:16–18; 19:6) and with other signs that the Apostles were performing (2:43)
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is closely connected with prophecy (all throughout 12–14).
7. Acts – Some of the unbelieving Jews at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk when they heard them speaking in other tongues (languages which those Jews did not understand).
1 Corinthians – Similar to Acts, Paul says that unbelievers will accuse the Corinthians of being mad [not unlike “drunk”] if their tongues go uninterpreted (14:23), and are therefore not understood by the hearer.
The biblical evidence (from the correlating observations above) supports the conclusion that the gift of tongues described in 1-2 Corinthians consists of the same phenomenon as the miraculous sign of tongues depicted in Acts.
Added to this is the fact that Luke (the author of Acts) was a close associate of Paul (the writer of 1 Corinthians). Moreover, the book of Acts was probably written after the epistle to the 1 Corinthians. It is unlikely, then, that Luke would have used the exact same terminology as Paul if he understood there to be an essential difference between the two (especially since such could lead to even greater confusion about the gifts–a confusion which plagued the Corinthian church).
But what about 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 … are there two different gifts discussed in these chapters?
1. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:7, 14–26, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of all the spiritual gifts (including tongues) is the edification of the church. (This is reemphasized in chapter 13, where Paul notes that even the most magnificent display of any gift is useless unless it is marked by selfless love.)
1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of tongues (that which is ideal and should be pursued) is the edification of the church (14:5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 26).
2. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:1, in order to introduce the topic of “spiritual gifts,” Paul uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos.
1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:1, as Paul returns to the topic of “spiritual gifts,” he again uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos. (This comes after his parenthetical comments in chapter 13 on the superiority of love to any gift.) By using the same term, Paul indicates that he is returning to the same topic (and the same set of gifts) that he left at the end of chapter 12.
3. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:31, Paul instructs the Corinthians to seek the greater gifts (“greater” from the Greek word meizon).
1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:5, Paul indicates that the gift of prophecy is greater (“meizon”) than the gift of tongues and therefore it is to be sought by the Corinthians. This builds off of Paul’s thought in 12:31, indicating that he is still speaking of the same set of gifts as those discussed in chapter 12.
4. 1 Corinthians 12 – In chapter 12, the word for tongues comes from the Greek word glossa. It’s the same word that is primarily used in Acts to describe the gift of tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, the word for tongues (with the exception of vv. 10–11) comes from the Greek word glossa. Lexically, of course, glossa either refers to the physical organ (of the tongue) or an authentic foreign language. The context here points to the latter understanding.
5. 1 Corinthians 12 – To “speak” with tongues in 12:30 comes from the Greek verb laleo.
1 Corinthians 14 – To “speak” with tongues in 14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23 comes from the Greek verb laleo. Thus the combination of laleo with glossa (“to speak in tongues”) is lexically equivalent in both chapters.
6. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:28–30, as noted earlier, Paul is explicit that not everyone speaks in tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – a) In 14:5 Paul says that he “wishes” (thelo) that all the Corinthians spoke in tongues. The implication, then, is that not all of them did. Moreover, Paul’s wish does not necessitate that such was a potential reality. (Paul earlier used the exact same construction in 1 Cor. 7:7 to “wish” that all Christian men were single [unmarried]. Yet, obviously, such was not a potential reality, since many of his readers were already married.) Also, Paul’s wish was not intended as a motivation for the Corinthian readers to pursue tongues. Instead, as the rest of verse 5 makes clear, Paul’s real point was that they pursue prophecy (the greater gift–cf. 14:39).
b) In 14:23, Paul’s use of “all” simply means “all who have the gift of tongues,” just as “all” in verse 24 refers to “all who have the gift of prophecy.” Nowhere, then, in chapter 14 does Paul undermine what he has already made clear in 12:8–11, 28–30 (that not every believer speaks in tongues).
7. 1 Corinthians 12 – Throughout chapter 12, the gift of tongues is closely associated with other gifts including the gift of prophecy and the gift of the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – The gift of prophecy in chapter 12 (vv. 10, 28–29) is the same as the gift of prophecy described in chapter 14 (vv. 1, 3–5, etc). Also the gift of interpretation of tongues in chapter 12 is the same as that in chapter 14. It follows, then, that the gift of tongues in chapter 12 is also the same as the gift of tongues in chapter 14.
Contextually, chapters 12–14 form one unit within the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is difficult to imagine that Paul would use the same terminology in the same context to refer to two categorically different phenomena.
What’s the point of all this?
Simply to make the case for the following:
1) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 was clearly the ability of the apostles to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned.
2) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 10 (and by implication Acts 19) is said, by Peter, to have been the same as what occurred in Acts 2.
3) The exegetical and historical evidence indicates that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians consisted of the same phenomena as that described in Acts. (As we will see.)
4) The exegetical and contextual evidence further indicates that, at least in its essence (or nature), there is only one gift of tongues being described in 1 Corinthians 12–14.
5) Thus, I conclude that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 was (as in Acts 2) the ability of select believers to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned. To assert that the gift in 1 Corinthians 14 is something categorically other than that (as in a non-rational spiritual prayer “language” which can be learned, and should be sought by every believer) is exegetically and contextually untenable.
6) Because the purpose was to edify the body—a purpose which, in order to be fulfilled, demanded that the foreign language be translated so that those in the congregation could understand it, Paul emphasizes the importance of interpretation (translation) in 1 Corinthians 14.

The Charismatic Question By Nathan Busenitz

I. BEFORE WE BEGIN. . .
At the outset of a discussion like this, it is always important to state a few preliminary clarifications. With that in mind, here’s a list of eight things I believe are worth considering:
1. This is an important issue, but it is not a first-level doctrine.
The charismatic debate is not a first-level doctrinal issue. After all, it is possible to be charismatic, non-charismatic, or even undecided and still be a Christian. One’s position regarding the continuation or discontinuation of the sign gifts is not determinative of his or her standing before God.
This does not mean that this issue is not important. It is very important because it has significant implications for both one’s private devotional life and the corporate body life of the local assembly. But it is not a first-level doctrine, and it’s good to remember that when voicing our disagreements.
I should add that my seminar here is intentionally directed toward the conservative evangelical continuationist, the “Reformed Charismatic.” Extreme charismatic and pentecostal groups, which in many cases actually do violate first-level doctrines — and thus should be confronted with boldness and directness — are outside the scope of what I am hoping to accomplish here.
2. The point of 1 Corinthians 12–14 is love, and a major purpose of the gifts is edification (1 Cor. 12:7).
It seems ironic that a passage in which Paul is emphasizing love for fellow Christians and unity within the body of Christ would itself become a primary point of division among believers. As Richard Gaffin writes: “Consider this disconcerting situation: Especially in recent decades the work of the one Spirit, given to unify the church (e.g., 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:3), has become the occasion (notice I did not say, the source!) of disunity and even divisions in the church” (Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, 334).
To be sure, I am not asserting that we simply dismiss our differences as though they do not exist. But I am suggesting that, specifically with those who affirm the first-level doctrines of the gospel, we approach the issue in the spirit of Paul’s overarching instruction to the Corinthians. We go awry, I believe, if we interpret 1 Cor. 12-14 correctly (regarding the gifts) but subsequently miss Paul’s entire point in those chapters (regarding love).
3. It is possible to be confused about spiritual gifts.
The Corinthian situation highlights the fact that, even in apostolic times (when all agree the gifts were in operation), it was possible to be confused about the miraculous gifts. Our contemporary situation underscores this point.
As we noted yesterday, the Scriptures must be our authority in sorting through any such confusion. And we must be willing to reconsider our position (and the presuppositions that undergird our position) if the Scripture shows us areas in which our thinking needs to change.
4. Not every continuationist is the same.
In fact, there are over 20,000 distinct continuationist groups in the world [according to The International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements]— ranging from Pentecostal to Charismatic to Third Wave. Because of this vast spectrum, it is impossible to address the theological nuances of each group. The common link that these groups share is a belief in the continued operation of the miraculous sign gifts throughout the entire church age.
As I noted earlier, my target audience is the “Reformed Charismatic,” though I hope my approach will be helpful for anyone thinking through issues related to the sign gifts.
5. Not every cessationist is the same.
According to one online encyclopedia, there are at least four types of cessationists: Concentric, Classical, Full, and Consistent. (Personally, I wish “Full” would be renamed “Complete” so we could have them all alliterated.) Our ministry here at Grace Church would generally fall into the Classical category.
6. We’re not talking about miracles, we’re talking about miraculous gifts.
My seminar today is not concerned with whether or not miracles (in the general sense) still occur today. Many cessationists believe that they do. The question is, rather, are the miraculous gifts of the New Testament still in operation in the church today?
Sam Waldron expresses his cessationist position this way:
I am not denying by all this that there are miracles in the world today in the broader sense of supernatural occurrences and extraordinary providences. I am only saying that there are no miracles in the stricter sense [of] miracle-workers performing miraculous signs to attest the redemptive revelation they bring from God. Though God has never locked Himself out of His world and is still at liberty to do as He pleases, when He pleases, how He pleases, and where He pleases, He has made it clear that the progress of redemptive revelation attested by miraculous signs done by miracle-workers has been brought to conclusion in the revelation embodied in our New Testaments. (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 102)
7. I have been greatly blessed by some continuationists.
My list would not be complete without noting the profound positive impact that some continuationist authors and church leaders have had in my life. This would include men like Dr. John Piper, whose passion for the supremacy of God and the enjoyment of God has been infectious in my own heart; Dr. Wayne Grudem, whose Systematic Theology and other academic works have both instructed and inspired me; and C. J. Mahaney, whose humility and Christ-centeredness continues to convict me and to motivate me to greater godliness. I am deeply indebted to these men, as are many others. They are a treasure to the American church in the twenty-first century.
8. As a cessationist, I love the Holy Spirit.
Though it should be an obvious characteristic of any true Christian, I feel the need, as a cessationist, to establish a simple point from the beginning: I love the Holy Spirit. I would never want to do anything to discredit His work, diminish His attributes, or downplay His ministry. Nor would I ever want to miss out on anything He is doing in the church today. And I know I’m not the only cessationist who feels this way.
Because we love the Holy Spirit we are thankful to God for the Spirit’s amazing and ongoing work in the body of Christ. His works of regenerating, indwelling, baptizing, sealing, assuring, illuminating, convicting, comforting, confirming, filling, and enabling are all indispensable aspects of His ministry.
Because we love the Holy Spirit we are motivated to study the Scriptures that He inspired to learn how to walk in a manner worthy, being characterized by His fruit. We long to be filled by Him (Eph. 5:18), which begins by being indwelt with His Word, which is the Word of Christ (Col. 3:16–17), and being equipped with His sword, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17).
Finally, it is because we love the Holy Spirit that we long to rightly represent Him, to understand and appreciate His purposes (as He has revealed them in His Word), and to align ourselves with what He is doing in this world. This more than anything else gives us reason to study the issue of charismatic gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7-11). Our goal in this study has to be more than mere doctrinal correctness. Our motivation must be to gain a more accurate understanding of the Spirit’s work – such that we might better yield ourselves to Him in service to Christ for the glory of God.

Email From Cathy

Cathy Wright
Comment / Message

I was rather alarmed to see Peckville Assembly of God with a '0' rating. After church hunting for some time after moving to north eastern PA, I have found this church to be sound in both doctrine and worship and have chosen to settle here. My son (14 yrs) also loves it. I consider myself somewhat 'fussy' about a genuine feel of a church, but have been very happy with both the welcome I received here and the unswerving focus on the grace of God.
I recommend your 'mystery worshippers' give Peckville a second chance!!!

Response To Cathy

Cathy,
Thank you for your email. The main aspect for looking at a church and its doctrine. Is based on its view of God and man. To put it in a more theological way. It is called Justification by faith alone through Christ alone. It is mainly in this area where Peckville did poorly from the pulpit. You see Cathy the bible is very clear that man can not chose Christ in his fallen state. We are dead in our sins and can not seek Him. We also know from Holy Scripture that no one comes to the Son unless they are drawn by the Father.
Sola Feda or Justification by Faith Alone through Christ Alone MUST BE the foundation that the church stands or falls on. Never evaluate a church on feelings or outside emotions. Church is the place for the true believer to be fed the whole council of God's Word. And to worship God in spirit and Truth.
Thank you again Cathy for your email. And please contact us anytime. Also please let your pastor know he also can us hear at Truth Matters to discuss any point Doctrine via conference call.
God bless you Cathy with His Truth.
Rev.Charles J. Paul

Some Thoughts on Church "Visions" By Rev.Rick Phillips

Our editor asks us to comment on the question of "crafting church visions." Is it necessary or even advisable for churches to make 5-year or 10 year plans? Or is such a practice a corruption of the spiritual calling of the church? My response consists of the following 7 points, which I will flesh out below:

1. The mandate for church "visions" comes not from the Scriptures but from the secular leadership industry and corporate consulting groups.2. The emphasis on "visions" and "strategies" has the general effect of placing the church's confidence in methods rather than in our message.3. Vision planning helps church leaders to conduct objective analysis so as to support better decision-making.4. Strategic timelines (5- and 10 year plans) tend to focus the church on results it is able to produce, whereas the Scriptures focus the church on results that only God can produce.5. Church visions emphasize what is distinctive about particular churches (their context, target audience, etc.) rather than what they hold in common with all other churches (God's Word, Christ, the call to personal holiness, etc.)6. Church visioning has the positive effect of causing churches to think in fresh ways about their local context and the missional impact they might have.7. Since every church has a strategy and methods (explicit or not), visioning causes explicit reflection on them. Again, I'm going to work through these in some detail below. But let me give you my conclusion up front:
Church visioning is a powerful tool that can help make leaders much more effective. But since it necessarily focuses on things man can achieve, it has a dangerous tendency to secularize the church. Therefore, in my opinion, church visioning is probably a good idea only for churches that are strongly established with an ordinary means of grace emphasis, but who need to pay more attention to their missional context. Also, I would suggest that a visioning process should be conducted only periodically so as to set some longer term trajectories for ministry aspirations. The document should be kept ready so as to offer its analysis to future decision-making (hiring decisions, budget priorities, etc.), and then the church should continue to focus on its God-given mission of serving the Kingdom of Christ through the God-given strategy of Word, sacrament, and prayer, with biblically-defined elders and pastors serving a biblically-shaped church. (See 2 Cor. 10:3-4, and 1 Cor. 1:21-2:2).
I'm going to flesh each of these out. But since this is fairly long, let me give the bottom line up front: church visioning can be a powerful and effective leadership tool. It can help you make much better decisions and can do much to enhance the strategic effectiveness of the church's ministries. But you had better keep the church vision in its place. Such a process has a strong tendency to redefine the role of the minister, the elder, and the whole church in a secular direction, can undermine the biblical and spiritual nature of the church, can presumptuously assume that the leaders' vision for the church and God's vision for the church are the same. In the end, God's vision for the church is so much greater than any human conception. But his vision requires long-term faithfulness to methods the world (and most consultants) deem foolish. Leaders' visions will generally tend towards more short-term outcomes (and 5-10 years is the short-term for a church), and will tend to challenge the foolishness of God with the wisdom of man.Now for a discussion of my seven points:1. The mandate for church "visions" comes not from the Scriptures but from the secular leadership industry and corporate consulting groups. In the early 90's, I received a M.B.A. in strategic management and then taught leadership at the university level. Then, when my wife had our first child after my first year of seminary, I put food on our table by doing part-time corporate consulting work. I can assure you that "vision" was the buzzword at the time. Everyone in corporate America or in government was required to produce a vision for their workplace. It is incontestable, in my view, that the "visioning" mandate entered the church through the work experience of lay leaders and ruling elders, with practically no biblical support. (And, no, "Without vision the people perish," is not biblical support.)2. The emphasis on "visions" and "strategies" has the general effect of placing the church's confidence in methods rather than in our message. This is simply the nature of the case. Typically, the visioning process begins with some description of the future, as you would like to see it. The whole point is to describe desired outcomes, so that you can allocate resources and implement processes to produce the outcomes. For instance, I used to begin by asking people to write a one paragraph newspaper article that they would like to describe their organization in five years. A pastor might include, "This is the most friendly church in the area." He then would be asked what would need to happen in the next five years to make that happen. Note that this is not a bad thing: it is good for church leaders to reflect on how to improve their churches, and a visioning process is a good way to do this. But the simple fact is that the tendency will be to direct attention to methods, and this will often distract attention from confidence in our message of the gospel. It is possible, of course, for a wholesome balance to be maintained. A church might decide, "In ten years, we would like to have a gospel club in every public school in town." They then would implement a process: formation of a gospel club committee, attempts to identify church members or supportive Christians in each school, development of curriculum, etc. Is this bad? I think not. But there is a danger. Is the senior minister now a process manager or does he remain a steward and teacher of God's Word? Are theology books on his shelves replaced by consulting tomes? This danger needs to be avoided, lest the church devolve into a mere ministry machine.3. Vision planning helps church leaders to conduct objective analysis to support better decision-making. This is why businessmen have forced "visioning" on the church: they are tired of poor decisions and the waste of resources. Good decisions require information, and quality information usually requires analysis. The only information used by many churches is "this is how we've always done it." So some analysis can be a breath of fresh air. For instance, a basic approach is the SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, threats. A church can assess its resources in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Are there capabilities that need to be developed (competent Bible teachers, financial reserves, prayer teams, etc.). Are there particular opportunities/needs that should be targeted: local colleges, nursing homes, new housing developments? Are there threats that need to be protected against: urban development that threatens eminent domain seizure of church property, denominational splits, cultural trends? Out of such an analysis, church leaders can make better decisions about budget allocation, new hires, and ministry strategy. Note that this process is neutral (to a certain extent): it can be done in a spiritual or a worldly way, with biblical insight or without. Perhaps the chief danger is this: who is making pastoral visits while the elders are working on this? As stated above, the main danger of church "visioning" is that it may redefine the roles of both the minister and the elders. A tendency back to a "corporate board of directors" model of eldership is difficult to avoid. One way to avoid it is to partition the visioning process into its own committee. But this gives the members of this committee a high degree of power. Moreover, see below, where I argue that visioning is not ultimately neutral, but tends to emphasize the flesh over the Spirit.
4. Strategic timelines (5- and 10 year plans) tend to focus the church on results it is able to produce, whereas the Scriptures focus the church on results that only God can produce. Any consultant worth his or her salt will tell you that without timelines, the whole process is a waste. There have to be targets that you are shooting for. But be careful: we simply are not able to put timelines on the sovereign grace of God. For this reason, the tendency will be to aim for temporal achievements that we can measure and in some degree control. And this distracts us from the work God has given us. Indeed, the whole point of goals is that they shape behavior. And they do! No one likes to fail to meet his or her goals. And since we cannot control works of the Spirit, visioning churches will tend to focus on works of the flesh. For instance, a timeline might state, “Attendance should double within five years.” But does that mean that the church is more productive in doing God’s work of saving souls and building up God’s people in faith? All our recent experience says that such a goal might destroy the Spiritual work of the church, undermining its faithfulness to God, and eviscerating its identity as a true gospel church. So timelines are powerful (and intrinsic to any visioning process) and very dangerous for the church. Here's the reality: what you measure, you will get more of. I often think of the "man with the measuring line" in the vision of Zechariah 2:1-5. The point of that biblical "vision" is that God's vision is both greater and different than man's vision. God promises something no fleshly leadership process can do: " I will be to her a wall of fire all around, declares the LORD, and I will be the glory in her midst" (Zech. 2:5). How can we be sure that our vision for our church is God's vision for our church? And who's church is it anyway? This was the point of Zechariah's vision for Zerubabbel and his leadership team. As you can tell, I think strategic timelines are very dangerous and mainly to be avoided. However powerful they are in a secular setting, that is the very problem: the secularization of the church is greatly advanced by strategic timelines, even ones that are well-meant and driven by biblical aspirations. It is a means that does not tend to support biblical ends.5. Church visions emphasize what is distinctive about particular churches (their context, target audience, etc.) rather than what they hold in common with all other churches (God's Word, Christ, the call to personal holiness, etc.). In the eyes of many, one of our main problems is that Reformed churches are all the same -- and there is something to this. Especially in Reformed circles, we have a tendency to do everything exactly the same, with the same allocation of resources, regardless of our cultural and sociological context. The effect of this is that while we are devoted to perpetrating "the work of the church," we often fail to look out the window and concern ourselves with the needs and opportunities right around us. Church visioning can do a lot to change this. Again, herein lies the danger. By any biblical definition, the "work of the church" is pretty constant: the ministry of the Word, prayer, and sacraments. If we want divine power for salvation, these are the means God has implemented. Other means do not have God's promise for saving grace. Notice that the visioning language is typically secular and betrays the logic of Madison Avenue and the Wharton Business School: target audience, market penetration, and the like. It is this logic that has caused evangelical churches increasingly not to look like "traditional" Christian churches, for the simple reason that they have deemed the common possessions of Christianity (God's Word, prayer, the gospel) to be irrelevant to their local vision. In this way, we end up with effective ministry businesses and we simply cease to be the Christian church. Because of our union with Christ and his headship over the church, and because true churches share the same manual of operations (i.e. the Bible), the reality should be that our churches look and act more alike than they are different from one another. Visioning tends in the opposite direction. So while some kind of visioning process can help us to be more effective in a missional sense, it had better be subjected to a brutal biblical analysis, and the church vision should be supplemental at best to the basic identity and calling of the church. (But this is not the tendency). 6. Church visioning has the positive effect of causing churches to think in fresh ways about their local context and the missional impact they might have. This follows from point #5, which emphasizes local distinctives over the common calling of Christ's church. Yet there are a lot of our churches which need some freshening up and a great deal more interest in their local missional impact. These are the churches who might benefit from a visioning process. I would not recommend visioning for a church plant -- start-up churches need to establish themselves on the ordinary means of God's grace -- or a church revitalization work -- God-given life comes only from His Word, prayer, and God-centered worship. I would only recommend visioning for an established church that needs some fresh thinking about its missional impact.7. Since every church has a strategy and methods (explicit or not), visioning causes explicit reflection on them. And it is good to be explicit and intentional in what we are doing. Many of us might ask, "Are we really as biblical as we think we are?" Not if we fail to seek a gospel impact in the world around us! Not if we are only perpetrating "the way it's always been done," for its own sake. Whether or not a formal visioning process is undertaken, church leaders need to openly discuss their priorities, their strategy and their methods. And you have them all -- the only question is whether or not you are willing to think about them openly and honestly about your strategy and methods.In conclusion, I would suggest that church visioning is probably a good idea only for churches that are strongly established with an ordinary means of grace emphasis, but who need to pay more attention to their missional context. Also, I would suggest that a visioning process should be conducted only periodically so as to set some longer term trajectories for ministry aspirations. The document should be kept ready so as to offer its analysis to future decision-making (hiring decisions, budget priorities, etc.), and then the church should continue to focus on its God-given mission of serving the Kingdom of Christ through the God-given strategy of Word, sacrament, and prayer, with biblically-defined elders and pastors serving a biblically-shaped church. The reality is that the leadership and management processes involved in a full-fledged visioning process are very powerful, so much so that they tend to be definitive of an organization. And since it is the nature of the case that process management involves assigning attention and effort to things that man can influence directly, visioning will always have a fleshly orientation. This is perfectly fine with a secular organization, but it threatens the church with the loss of her identity, his God-given mission, and her fidelity to Christ. Remember what God's Word says:
"Though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:3-4); and"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men... [Therefore,] I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:21-25, 2:2).

Who Are The Seekers To Whom Seeker Sensitive Churches Are Sensitive? By Ralph M. Petersen

The church growth gurus tell us that there are millions of them who are looking for God and we should adapt our worship and market our churches to be attractive to them. If they feel “comfortable” and “unthreatened” in our services; if we design church around their “felt needs,” they say, the unchurched and the unregenerated might like us. Then we can get them “plugged in” so that they might eventually make a “decision” for God.Are there any seekers out there? The Bible indicates that there are some people who are seeking. But what is it that they seek? A look at the following passages indicates that natural men do seek something; they seek signs and wonders, human wisdom, and favor from men. Natural men who do seek for a god, are not really interested in The God but seek after false gods of their own imaginations.For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; I Cor. 1:22-23Many seek the ruler’s favour; but every man’s judgment cometh from the LORD. Proverbs 29:26And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards. And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 19:3-4There are some incidents in Scripture where unregenerate men did seek after Jesus:And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. Matt. 2:3Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? John 7:25But here it is plainly evident that their real purpose was not to worship Him but to kill Him.If there are any seekers out there who are really looking for God, shouldn’t we be friendly or sensitive to them? Shouldn’t we be concerned about them? Well, of course we should. After all, God is concerned about them. In the book of the Psalms are two very similar verses that clearly indicate that God looks for those who seek after Him.The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. Psalm14:2God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Psalm 53:2But guess what?THERE ARE NONE!THEY DON’T EXIST!Now don’t get mad at me. That’s not my opinion; it’s God’s definitive declaration. Here are the verses that follow the two mentioned above in the Psalms. Here is the rest of the story:The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. Psalm 10:4They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:3And in case that isn’t sufficient enough proof, here is more of God’s Word on the subject:Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 53:3An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him. Proverbs 17:11Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. Psalm 119:155For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 9:13Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! Isaiah 3And finally, the most definitive, absolute, unarguable and all-inclusive statement of all:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:11There IS another Seeker mentioned in Scripture and His name is Jehovah. He is the Good Shepherd and He is seeking His flock.For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment. Ezekiel 34:11-16Either there are seekers out there who are looking for the true, living God or there are not. Who are you going to believe – Rick Warren and Bill Hybels or God?The Church is the body of Christ. It is assembled together for “born again” believers to worship and to be instructed in doctrine and righteousness and to be equipped for the work of the ministry. It is NOT a club and there is no legitimate place for unbelievers in it.If we were really sincere about being “seeker sensitive,” we would not be concerned about being sensitive to non-existent seekers. We would only be concerned about the real seeker and we would model our worship services according to His commands and not our preferences?But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. John 4

Style or Substance? By John MacArthur

What’s the Biggest Problem with Contemporary Church Music?
It should be clear to anyone who examines the subject carefully that modern church music, as a rule, is vastly inferior to the classic hymns that were being written 200 years ago.
And incidentally, my own assessment is that the style in which music is written today isn’t really the biggest problem with contemporary music. Styles change. Bad church music isn’t bad just because it is “contemporary.” But the content of the lyrics is what reveals most graphically how low our standards have slipped.
This is not a problem that arose with the current generation. It dates back to an era whose musical style would seem quite old-fashioned by anyone’s standards today.
Before the middle part of the 19th century or so, hymns were wonderful didactic tools, filled with Scripture and sound doctrine, a medium for teaching and admonishing one another, as we are commanded in Colossians 3:16. Most hymns were written not by teenagers with guitars, but by pastors and theologians: Charles Wesley, Augustus Toplady, Isaac Watts.
Consider the profound content of this hymn about God’s attributes, written by Walter C. Smith in the 1800s:
Immortal, invisibleImmortal, invisible, God only wise,In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might;Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring aboveThy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.
Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,Thine angels adore Thee, all veiling their sight;But of all Thy rich graces this grace, Lord, impartTake the veil from our faces, the vile from our heart.
All laud we would render; O help us to see‘Tis only the splendor of light hideth Thee,And so let Thy glory, Almighty, impart,Through Christ in His story, Thy Christ to the heart.
Around the start of the twentieth century, however, church music took a different direction. Musicians and singers without formal pastoral or theological training (such as Ira Sankey and Philip Bliss) became the dominant songwriters in the church. Choruses with lighter, simpler subject matter proliferated. Popular Christian music became more subjective. Songs focused on personal experience and the feelings of the worshiper. The newer compositions were often called “gospel songs” to distinguish them from “hymns.”
Consider this familiar chorus, written in 1912 by C. Austin Miles:
In the GardenI come to the garden aloneWhile the dew is still on the rosesAnd the voice I hear falling on my earThe Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,And He tells me I am His own;And the joy we share as we tarry there,None other has ever known.
He speaks, and the sound of His voice,Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,And the melody that He gave to meWithin my heart is ringing.
I’d stay in the garden with HimThough the night around me be falling,But He bids me go; through the voice of woeHis voice to me is calling.
Aside from an oblique reference to “the Son of God” in the last line of the first stanza, there’s no distinctly Christian content to that song at all.
“In the Garden” is by no means the only wretched favorite from the gospel-song era, either. “Love Lifted Me” (1912) and “Count Your Blessings” (1897) are two more “gospel songs” without much actual gospel content. If you want to see what thin gruel some of the “oldies” offer by way of actual biblical or doctrinal substance, review almost any random list of favorite old “gospel songs.”
Modern musicians have pushed this trend even further and often see music as little more than a device for stimulating intense emotion. The biblically-mandated didactic role of music is all but forgotten.
The effect is predictable. What we have sown for several generations we are now reaping in frightening abundance. The modern church, fed on choruses with insipid lyrics, has no appetite for her own great tradition of didactic hymnody.
We are in danger of losing a rich heritage as some of the best hymns of our faith fall into neglect and disuse, being replaced with banal lyrics set to catchy tunes. Thankfully, there are some wonderful exceptions to this trend — exceptions which we hope will soon turn the tide. In the meantime, our prayer is that both pastors and church musicians will come to realize the severity of the crisis and the vital importance of theologically-sound worship music.

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 10

Q27: What do you understand by the providence of God?

A27: The almighty, everywhere-present power of God,[1] whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven and earth with all creatures,[2] and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink,[3] health and sickness,[4] riches and poverty,[5] indeed, all things come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.
1. Acts 17:25-262. Heb. 1:33. Jer. 5:24; Acts 14:174. John 9:35. Prov. 22:2; Psa. 103:19; Rom. 5:3-5a

Q28: What does it profit us to know that God created and by His providence upholds all things?

A28: That we may be patient in adversity,[1] thankful in prosperity,[2] and for what is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that no creature shall separate us from His love,[3] since all creatures are so in His hand, that without His will they cannot so much as move.[4]
1. Rom. 5:3; James 1:3; Job 1:212. Deut. 8:10; I Thess. 5:183. Rom. 8:35, 38-394. Job 1:12; Acts 17:25-28; Prov. 21:1; Psa. 71:7; II Cor. 1:10

A Word to Pastors . . . By Dr Phil Ryken

. . from church father Columbanus:

"Let us all hasten to approach to perfect manhood, to the measure of the completed growth of the fulness of Jesus Christ, in Whom let us love one another, praise one another, correct one another, encourage one another, pray for one another, that with Him in one another we may reign and triumph."

Forcing Luther into Erasmus' Shoes... by Rick Phillips

Having read the article to which Ligon links, regarding Pope Benedict and Martin Luther, it seems that the Luther they want to restore is really Erasmus. The latter ranted against the moral and spiritual abuses of the Roman Catholic Church just as much as Luther did. But Luther himself insisted that it was not merely the practice of the Church that he assailed -- it was, most specifically, its salvation doctrine. Thus continues the recent Roman Catholic--Evangelical dialogue. At each step, it is the evangelicals who end up changing, never the papists (after which the evangelicals celebrate their "achievement"). At least when it comes to Luther, this Erasmian remaking is being imposed upon him, five hundred years after his valiant life for the gospel. Luther knew that we must stand fast on God's Word and on the gospel proclamation of sola fide. Our dialogue with Roman Catholics today can certainly improve on the tone of previous generations of evangelicals, but we cannot improve on our forefathers' commitment to the biblical gospel. The reason we have evangelical churches today is that those before us refused to be moved from the gospel. The question now is whether or not our grandchildren will have a true evangelical church, and it depends on our willingness to stand with and like Luther on sola fide.

That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope --From Ligon Duncan

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict's image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.

The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.
Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.
The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God's Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.
Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.
In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.
Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

What is a "Creed"?

Creed \'kreed\

[ME crede, from OE creeda, from Latin credo ("I believe" the first word of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to OIr cretid "he believes"]

1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: a set of fundamental beliefs
3: a guiding principle

The Creeds and Confessions produced by the Christian Church over the centuries are not inspired additions to Scripture nor in any way replacements for the words of Christ and his apostles or the prophets which preceded them. Instead these human documents are carefully considered and usually thoughtfully worded responses to various issues, heresies and historical situations that have troubled the Church and the world over the centuries. Creeds are statements of faith that are true and authoritative insofar as they accurately reflect what Scripture teaches. Those linked here have been found useful either by the entire Church or by important segments and/or denominations of it over the ages. They are thus helpful "measuring sticks" for orthodoxy. Canons but not the canon.

Some have said the creeds are man made and hence should be ignored in favor of Scripture. Should we then dispose of all sermons, Bible study texts, commentaries, doctrinal outlines, books on theology, devotionals, et cetera? Certainly not! The creeds do not masquerade as Scripture and many specifically point out that it is the Scriptures themselves which are "the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Yet as Christians is it not valuable to consider how the Holy Spirit has spoken to our brothers and sisters over the millennia as they have struggled with various issues, poured over the Scriptures and often fasted and prayed heartily with their fellow Christians in the light of the inspired texts? Surely, to quote the pulpit prince C. H. Spurgeon to his students,

"you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound the Scripture without the assistance from the works of divine and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition . . . . It seems odd that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." (Commenting and Commentaries)

Even if we reject some of their insights at least we should pause to consider what they have gleaned from Holy Writ and how their historical situation influenced their Biblical interpretations. Let us remember the words of Peter when he said, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV)

Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 1 Explained and Proved from Scripture By Thomas Vincent

I. Ques. What is the chief end of man?

Ans. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

1 Corinthians 10:31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Romans 11:36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Psalm 73:24-26. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God isthe strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.John 17:22, 24. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one... Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Q. 1. What is meant by the chief end of man?A. The chief end of man, is that which man ought chiefly to aim at or design, to desire, seek after, and endeavour to obtain, as his chief good and happiness; unto which his life and his actions should be referred and directed; which is the glorifying of God, and the enjoying of God for ever.
Q. 2. May men have no other chief end than the glorifying and enjoying of God?A. Men ought to have no other chief end than the glorifying of God, but they may have subordinate ends. For— 1. Men ought to be diligent in their particular callings, for this end, that they may provide for themselves and their families. "Do your own business, and work with your own hands, that ye may have lack of nothing."— 1 Thess. 4:11-12. 2. Men may eat, and drink, and sleep, for this end, that they may nourish and refresh their bodies. It is lawful to design, and desire, and seek such things as these in such actions, subordinately, or less principally; but in these and all actions, men ought principally and chiefly to design and seek the glory of God. "Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."— 1 Cor. 10:31. 3. Men may moderately desire and endeavour after the enjoyment of such a portion of the good things of the world as is needful and useful; but they ought to make choice of God for their chief good, and desire the eternal enjoyment of him as their chief portion. "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee," or in comparison with thee. "My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever."— Ps. 73:25-26.
Q. 3. What is it to glorify God?A. 1. Negatively, to glorify God, is not to give any additional glory to God: it is not to make God more glorious than he is; for God is incapable of receiving the least addition to his essential glory, he being eternally and infinitely perfect and glorious. "Your Father which is in heaven is perfect."— Matt. 5:48. "Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not unto thee."— Ps. 16:2.2. Affirmatively, to glorify God, is to manifest God's glory: not only passively, as all creatures do, which have neither religion nor reason, but also actively, men glorify God, when the design of their life and actions is the glory and honour of God. "That ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you," &c.— 1 Pet. 2:9. (1.) When inwardly they have the highest estimation of him, the greatest confidence in him, and the strongest affections to him, this is glorifying of God in spirit.. "Glorify God in your spirit, which is God's."— 1 Cor. 6:20. (2.) When outwardly they acknowledge God according to the revelations he hath made of himself, when with their lips they show forth God's praise. "He that offereth praise, glorifieth me."— Ps. 50:23. When they sincerely endeavour, in their actions, the exalting of God's name, the promotion of the interest of his kingdom in the world, and to yield that worship and obedience to him which he hath prescribed in his Word. ") magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together."— Ps. 24:3. "Fear God, and give glory to him; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."— Rev. 14:7.
Q. 4. What is it to enjoy God?A. To enjoy God, is to acquiesce or rest in God as the chief good, with complacency and delight. "Return unto thy rest, O my soul."— Ps. 116:7.
Q. 5. How is God enjoyed here?A. 1. God is enjoyed here, when people do settle them-selves upon and cleave to the Lord by faith. "But cleave unto the Lord your God."— Josh. 23: 8. 2. When they taste the Lord's goodness, and delight themselves in the gracious presence and sensible manifestations of God's special love unto them. "O taste and see that the Lord is good."— Ps. 34:8. "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost."— Rom. 5:5.
Q. 6. How will God be enjoyed by his people hereafter?A. God will be enjoyed hereafter by his people, when they shall be admitted into his glorious presence, have an immediate sight of his face, and full sense of his love in heaven, and there fully and eternally acquiesce and rest in him with perfect and inconceivable delight and joy. "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."— 1 Cor. 23:12. "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."— Heb. 4:9. "In thy presence there is fulness of joy, at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore."— Ps. 16:11.
Q. 7. Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?A. Because God hath inseparably joined them together, so that men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee." — Ps. 84:4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven he will be most highly glorified. "He shall come to be glorified in his saints."— 2 The ss. 1:10.
Q. 8. Why ought men chiefly to design the glorifying of God in all their actions?A. 1. Because God hath made them, and made them for this end, and given them a soul capable of doing it beyond irrational creatures. "Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that made us, and not we ourselves."— Ps. 100:3. "The Lord made all things for himself."— Prov. 16:4. "Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless his holy name."— Ps. 103:1. 2. Because God doth preserve them, and makes provision for them, that they might glorify him. "O bless our God, O ye people, which holdeth our soul in life."— Ps. 66:8-9. "O Come, let us worship before the Lord, for we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand."— Ps. 95:6-7. 3. Because God hath redeemed them, and bought them with the price of his Son's blood, that they may-glorify him. "Ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."— 1 Cor. 6:19-20. 4. Because he hath given them his Word to direct, his Spirit to assist, and promiseth his kingdom to encourage them to glorify him. "He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and judgments unto Israel. he hath not dealt so with any nation. Praise ye the Lord "— Ps. 147:19-20. "Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities."— Rom. 8:26. "Heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him."— James 2:1.
Q. 9. Why ought men chiefly to desire and seek the enjoyment of God for ever?A. 1. Because God is the chief good, and in the enjoyment of God doth consist man's chiefest happiness. "There is none good but one, that is God."— Matt. 19:17. "There be many that say, Who will show us any good? Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us. Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased."— Ps. 4:6-7. 2. Because God is but imperfectly and inconstantly enjoyed here, and men cannot be perfectly happy until they come to the eternal enjoyment of God in heaven. "We know in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."— 1 Cor. 13:9-10. "Not as though I had already attained, either? were already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended "— Phil. 3:12. "In thy presence there is fulness of joy."— Ps. 16:11.

A CASE FOR INFANT BAPTISM. By Rev. Scott J. Simmons

Introduction
This essay is intended to set forth a biblical and coherent case for infant baptism, beginning with an understanding of roots in the Old Testament practice of circumcision and its parallels with a theology of baptism. This issue is not an issue for which proof-texts can be cited and then the issue decided. In many ways, the debate rests on (1) the matter of burden of proof and (2) which underlying theology best explains all Biblical passages. It will be argued that the theology behind infant baptism best expresses the Biblical passages that address the subject. Furthermore, it will be argued that the issue of “burden of proof” ought to rest on those who would seek to overturn the structures of the Old Covenant. It is my opinion that there is enough evidence in the New Testament for the Church to practice infant baptism.

Old Testament Background
The Structure of Old Testament Covenants
Old Testament covenants follow a pattern that is very similar to treaty documents and royal annals found in the Ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C. When a suzerain (king) captured or threatened to capture another state, the suzerain would many times offer a treaty to the king of that state. If the treaty was accepted, that state would become a vassal to the suzerain. In this case, stipulations would be given as to how the vassal state would serve the suzerain. Usually, there was a tribute and loyalty to be given to the suzerain in exchange for protection from enemies. A list of sanctions would be given to determine what would happen in the case of covenant fidelity or infidelity. If the vassal state was loyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the covenant, that state would receive blessings, including protection from enemies, etc. If the vassal state was disloyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the covenant, that state would receive curses, including the possibility of invasion and destruction of the vassal state.

In Ancient Israel, Yahweh was the great Suzerain and Israel was the vassal state. After God redeemed her from slavery in Egypt, Israel became a vassal state to Yahweh (Deut. 5:6ff). Stipulations were therefore given to set out exactly how Israel was to loyal to her suzerain (Deut. 5—26). Sanctions were also set down to explain the blessings and curses that Israel would receive for her covenant fidelity or infidelity (Deut. 27—30). If Israel obeyed the stipulations of the covenant, she would be allowed to remain in the land of Israel and would be protected from her enemies (Deut. 30:15-16, 18-20). If Israel disobeyed, she would eventually be exiled from the land of Israel (Deut. 30:1-2, 17-18). All this is not to say that in the Old Testament the Israelites received salvation because of their works. On the contrary, salvation was a promise given to them to be accepted by faith (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-6). Rather, the Mosaic covenant had to do with whether or not the Israelites would keep the privilege of living in the land of Israel, not whether or not they were saved.

One dynamic that is consistent throughout all the Old Testament covenants (as well as the treaty documents and royal annals of the ancient near east[1]) is that these covenants extended to the children of believers. This can be demonstrated by a brief perusal of the passages dealing with the various covenants of the Old Testament:

· Adam: In Genesis 1:28, God commanded Adam, “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” Part of the way God structured the covenant with Adam was the command for Adam to produce offspring. Also, in Rom. 5:12-21, Paul contrasts Adam and Christ. Sin and death entered the world through Adam, salvation and life come through Christ. What is implicit in this passage (particularly in verse 12) is that it is the descendents of Adam were effected by his disobedience.
· Noah: In Genesis 9:1, God reiterated the same command He had previously given to Adam in Gen. 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Also, in Gen. 9:8-9, God clearly states that He is going to establish a covenant with Noah and his descendents.
· Abraham: In Gen. 15:18, God says that it is to Abraham’s descendents that he has given the land. In Gen. 17:1-4, God says that part of the covenant between God and Abraham was that He would multiply Abraham exceedingly. In Gen. 17:7, God explicitly states that the covenant is an everlasting covenant between God, Abraham, and his descendents.
· Moses: In Deut. 29:10-15, God states that the covenant extends to the “little ones,” and “wives.” Deut. 29:29 states that “the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever.”
· David: In 2 Sam. 7:12-16, God clearly tells David that the benefits of the covenant with David will be extended to his children. Furthermore, Ps. 89:3-4 says that God will establish David’s seed forever.
These verses, to name a few, demonstrate the fact that within the Old Testament framework, children were to be considered members of the covenant. Children were thus to receive the covenantal sign of circumcision, since they were covenant members.

The Nature of Circumcision
In order to properly understand baptism, it is imperative to first understand the nature of circumcision in the Old Testament.

Sign of the Covenant
When God established His covenant with Abraham, He mandated that His covenant be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 17:9-14). In verse 11, God says, “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.” In verses 10 and 12, God also says that Abraham’s descendents were to be circumcised as well. What is important is that circumcision was considered to be a sign of the covenant God had established with Abraham. This covenant consists of God’s promise to Abraham that He would bring him and his descendants into the land of Canaan. Thus circumcision was a sign of the promise God had made to Abraham and his descendents. It was God’s pledge to His covenanted people that He would fulfill the promise He had given to Abraham.

As a consequence to being a sign of the covenant, circumcision was also a sign of the blessings and curses of the covenant. As Meredith Kline explains, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized an oath of allegiance to Yahweh. The cutting of the foreskin was only a token cutting. Should the covenant-child grow up and become a covenant breaker, he would receive the curses of the covenant. He was to be “cut off”—that is, circumcised—from his people by death (Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-6; Num. 15:30; Eze. 14:6-8). Of course, the hope was that the child would be faithful to the covenant. As such, the circumcision oath was also an act of consecration. This fact is evident in the “circumcision of the heart” passages in the Old Testament (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:24; c.f. Rom. 2:29). Jeremiah exclaims in an effort to spare the people of Judah from judgment, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; circumcise your hearts!” (Jer. 4:4).[2]

This is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, for Christ was “circumcised” on our behalf by His death on the cross (Col. 2:11-12). Here the phrase “circumcision of Christ” ought to be seen as an “objective genitive”—that is, the circumcision done to Christ when he was crucified on our behalf. Note Paul’s use of the phrase “body of death” in Col. 1:22 and 2:11. In Col. 1:22, it is by Christ’s “body of flesh through death” that God reconciled us. In parallel fashion, in Col. 2:11, it is by “stripping away [Christ’s] body of flesh” in His circumcision (i.e., crucifixion) that we are “circumcised” to Him. Meredith Kline calls it “the mystery of a divine circumcision—the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only begotten.”[3] It is also worth noting the verbal parallels when Paul’s baptismal expression in Col. 2:11-12 is compared to Rom. 6:3-4. Here, the individual is to identify with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. Likewise, in Col. 2, the believer is identified with Christ in His burial and resurrection, with “the circumcision of Christ” functioning in a parallel manner to Christ’s death in Rom. 6.[4]

By His death on the cross, Christ took upon Himself the curses of the covenant for His own (Gal. 4:10-13) so that we might receive the blessings of the covenant—eternal life with Him in the promise of the Spirit (Gal. 4:14). In the present age, those who are circumcised are seeking to be justified by works of the law instead of by faith in Christ. Therefore, Paul says they are bound to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3). However, no one can perfectly keep the law, so those who seek justification through the law rather than by faith receive the curse—i.e., they are “cut off” (i.e., “circumcised”) from Christ (Gal. 5:4).

Sign of Faith
Not only is circumcision a sign of the covenant, but it is a sign of faith. Romans 4:11 states that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised.” Paul describes circumcision as a sign of faith. This concept is quite consistent with the Old Testament understanding of circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision symbolized purification from defilement.[5] Furthermore, the Old Testament routinely makes use of circumcision imagery to describe a change in the attitude of the heart towards serving and worshipping the living God. In Deut. 10:16, God’s covenanted people are commanded, “Circumcise your heart and stiffen your neck once more.” Jer. 4:4 exclaims, “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart” (see also Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 9:26; Eze. 44:7, 9; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28-29). As mentioned before, the outward sign of circumcision was a symbol of an inward “conversion” and consecration to serve the living God. The true Israelite in the Old Testament was the one who had circumcised his heart as well as having been circumcised in the flesh (Rom. 2:28-29).

This concept is wonderfully illustrated by Paul in the New Testament. In Romans 9:6-8, Paul claims that not all of Abraham’s physical children are his true descendents. Rather, he claims “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” In Gal. 3:7-8 Paul claims that it is really “those who believe who are children of Abraham.” These statements do not reflect a truth that had just become true in the New Testament. Rather, they reflect a dynamic that has been operative throughout the Old Testament. This is precisely Paul’s argument in Galatians. Those who seek justification through the law are not even being faithful to their Old Testament Scriptures (let alone to Christ), for the promise of salvation was given to Abraham apart from works (Rom. 4:11) and was received by faith (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6), and the giving of the Law under Moses did not do away with that promise (Gal. 3:17). It was only those who had faith who would receive the promised salvation. Because of this, the children of Abraham by natural birth were circumcised in the flesh in anticipation of the time when those children would circumcise their hearts to become children of Abraham by faith. The following diagram illustrates this principle.


New Testament Baptism
The Question of Burden of Proof
There are no explicit passages in the New or Old Testament which either affirm or deny the practice of infant baptism in the New Testament. Therefore, the question of infant baptism, in many ways, boils down to one of burden of proof. The credo-baptist (one who believes in believer’s baptism) says that the burden of proof is on the paedo-baptist (one who believes in infant baptism), because there is no explicit warrant in the New Testament for baptizing infants. The paedo-baptist, on the other hand, claims that the credo-baptist needs to find warrant from the New Testament to overturn the structures of the covenantal structures in the Old Testament.

One thing that must be understood when discussion baptism in the New Testament s that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” This concept is entirely consistent with the covenants of the Old Testament. In all the covenants described in the Bible, there is an explicit statement that the covenant extends to the children of believers. This is also inferred in 1 Cor. 7:14, where the children of one believing parent are called “holy”—that is, we must infer, set apart from the world by the child’s relationship to the church by virtue of the believing parent.[6]

Another thing that must be understood is that baptism in the New Testament serves the same function as circumcision in the Old Testament. In the same way that the Lord ’s Supper is the New Testament expression of the Passover meal,[7] baptism is the New Testament expression of circumcision. Intuitively, this is seen to be true, for in the book of Acts, new converts are not told to be circumcised as they would have been in the Old Testament. Instead they are told to be baptized (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, Col. 2:11-12 makes this connection clear: “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” In this passage, circumcision and baptism are clearly linked—baptism is considered the New Testament expression of circumcision.

These two considerations make one thing clear: the New Testament believers would have presumed that they should baptized their children unless there was a change effected in the New Covenant which would reverse the structures of the Old Covenant. In other words, the burden of proof is actually on the credo-baptist, not on the paedo-baptist. If the structure of the New Covenant is the same as the Old such that the covenant extends to the children of believers, and baptism serves the same function that circumcision once held, then the subjects of baptism should be considered the same unless explicitly told otherwise in the New Testament. This truth can be stated another way. It was a good thing that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. The sign of circumcision was given to those who were in the Old Covenant, and it was a good thing to be in the covenant. In fact, it was a gracious thing to be in the covenant and receive the covenant sign. Why would this gracious thing be taken away in the New Testament? Why would grace diminish under the New Covenant? The credo-baptist ought to justify how it is that children are now excluded from the covenant and therefore no longer suitable recipients of the covenant sign.

Continuity and Discontinuity in the Book of Acts
There are three areas in which one might expect either continuity or discontinuity in the book of Acts regarding the practice of baptism. These are: (1) the baptism of both males and females, (2) the baptism of Jews and Gentiles, and (3) the baptism of believers and their children. On the first two, we have explicit statements of discontinuity with the Old Testament. On the third, we have none.

Baptism of Both Males and Females
In Acts 2:17,18, Peter quotes a passage from Joel in which it is prophesied that in the New Testament times, God would pour out His Spirit on men and women alike (baptismal language) and both sons and daughters will prophesy. Furthermore, in Acts 8:12 we find that it was the common practice to baptize “men and women alike.” In Acts 16:15, we are told that Paul and his companions baptized a Philippian woman named Lydia, along with all those in her household. Under the Old Covenant only male children were circumcised; therefore, Luke explicitly makes known this discontinuity between the Old and New Covnenants. Under the Old Covenant only males were circumcised, while in the New Covenant, both men and women are to be baptized.

Baptism of Jews and Gentiles
In Acts 2:38-39, Peter states that the promise is not only for Jews and their children, but “for all who are far off” as well. Gentiles were to be baptized along with Jews upon conversion to Christ. This was the practice of the Apostles throughout the book of Acts, though not without some controversy. In Acts 8:38, Phillip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch. In Acts 10:44-48, Luke records how it became the policy of the apostles to baptized Gentile converts along with Jews, for the Spirit had been given to them as well as to the Jews. Under the Old Covenant, male, Gentile converts to Judaism were to be circumcised; however, circumcision still remained a large barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-18). Under the New Covenant, however, this barrier was taken out of the way. Both Jews and Gentiles can and should be baptized together. Luke was careful to make clear the nature of this discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.

Baptism of Believers and their Children
When it come to the question of whether or not the children of believers are to be baptized, however, we find no hint from Luke that there is any discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. In stead, Luke records Peter’s words in Acts 2:39: “The promise is for you and for your children.” Certainly there are many accounts of new believers being baptized as adult converts, yet this is to be expected when missionary activity is taking place. Paedo-baptists believe that adult converts ought to be baptized, since they are now included in the covenant.[8] What is striking in the book of Acts is that Luke records several accounts of “household baptisms.”[9] For instance, in Acts 16:15, Lydia and all those in her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33, Paul baptized the Philippian jailor along with everyone in his household. In neither of these instances is there any record that anyone in the households of these believers were converted before being baptized. Nor is there any statement that anyone preached the gospel to those in the household before they were baptized. In fact, in Acts 16:33, Luke records that in the very hour the Philippian jailer was converted, he washed their wounds and then immediately he was baptized along with his household. It does not appear that anyone even had time to preach the gospel to the household.[10] It seems that the family did come to believe, but we are not given any clear indication that they believed before they were baptized.

Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the households of these believers contained no infants and were converted before being baptized. Therefore, there is no ironclad proof of the practice of infant baptism in these passages. However, this is more than an argument from silence. Luke has been careful to delineate areas of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants with regard to the practice of baptizing women and Gentiles. Yet when it comes to the practice of baptizing the children of believers, Luke has not delineated any areas of discontinuity. In fact, if Luke was not a paedo-baptist, then he was somewhat careless when he wrote about these household baptisms. These passages in Acts 16 would have provided him with a perfect opportunity to make known any discontinuity on the practice of infant baptism. Luke could have written, “and when the household of Lydia [or the Philippian jailor] believed in the Lord Jesus, they were baptized along with Lydia [or the Philippian jailor].” Since there is no indication of any discontinuity in the practice of infant baptism, and since we have evidence of household baptisms in the book of Acts, it would certainly seem more likely that Luke understood that there was continuity between the Old and New Covenants on the practice of infant baptism. After reading the book of Acts, we are left to conclude that the subjects of baptism include the children of believers, in continuity with the practice of circumcision in the Old Testament.

Objections to Infant Baptism
Baptism is a sign of Faith
Some object to infant baptism on the basis of passages such as Rom. 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27-28 and Col. 2:11-12. These objections usually center around the idea that baptism is closely linked with the faith of believers, so that only believers are the proper recipients of this sign of faith. This objection may take one of four forms:

Objection #1—“Baptism is a sign of the faith already existing in the believer. It is an outward expression of an inward commitment. If that inward commitment is not present, the sign should not be given.” Such a theology of baptism is in many ways a man-centered theology. It invests the sign only with a meaning generating from an inward conversion, not God’s grace. In fact, as we have already noted, the covenant signs are signs of the covenant of grace. They are gracious signs, not human commitment signs. As with circumcision (see above), baptism is a sign of God’s faithfulness to His covenantal promises in Christ. He promises in the sacrament that He will save the believer. The flip side of this reality is that should the child never ratify the covenant with his faith, he will receive the curses of the covenant. Furthermore, covenantal signs are communal signs, not individual signs. Baptism does not symbolize one person’s commitment to God as much as it consecrates the person to God by virtue of being included within the covenant family, the family of believers. Paedo-baptism is thus a much-needed correction to the rampant individualism that has influenced American churches.

Objection #2—“Baptism symbolizes union with Christ. This union with Christ is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptized.” It is certainly true that baptism symbolizes union with Christ; this is entirely correct. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches and affirms this fact.[11] However, the conclusion that only believers are to be baptized does not follow from the premise. We must not confuse the sign with the thing signified. The sign symbolizes union with Christ is given to the children of those who believe and have been united with Christ by faith. The children of believers are part of the covenant Christ has established with His people; therefore, the sign of the covenant is to be given to the children of believers.

Objection #3—“In these passages, baptism symbolizes purification from sins. This forgiveness and purification is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptized.” Certainly it is also true that baptism symbolizes purification from sins (see also Tit. 3:5; Cor. 6:11). Yet once again, the conclusion that only believers should be baptized is unwarranted, for again, the sign is not to be confused with the thing signified. Children of believers are baptized in anticipation of the day when they will come to faith and receive purification from sins. Furthermore, this objection would also negate the validity of circumcision in the Old Testament. As stated before, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized purification from sins and circumcision imagery was used to describe that inward “conversion” and consecration to serve and worship the living God. Yet circumcision was administered to infants; therefore, it is not inconsistent to baptize infants as well.

Objection #4—“It is presupposed that those who are reading these passages were baptized as believers. Therefore, only believers should be baptized.” For the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true. Even if this is the case, it is to be expected that the original recipients of these letters were baptized as adults. We must remember that these letters were written to missionary churches, and the recipients of these letters were often the first generation of Christians in these churches. Certainly, therefore, most of the leaders of these churches were baptized as adult converts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul would assume that the readers were baptized as adults.
Ultimately, since baptism is merely the New Testament expression of circumcision, any theological argument against baptism works equally well against circumcision. However, we have clear indication of the practice of infant circumcision. Therefore, credo-baptists ought to be extremely careful about how they question the practice of infant baptism, for many times they disallow the practice of infant circumcision on the same grounds.

The Mode of Baptism
Some argue that the Greek word baptizō (βαπτίζω) meaning “baptize” actually means “immerse” and therefore baptism ought to be given only to those who are believers. However, Greek dictionaries give many meanings for the word βαπτίζω, and while some do include the meaning “immerse” or “dip,” they also include other meanings. The Baur-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon, for instance, notes that it can be used “of Jewish ritual washings” (Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38).[12] Similarly, the Louw-Nida lexicon writes that the word means “to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable—‘to wash, to purify, washing, purification,’”[13] clearly implying that other contexts involved washing without dipping in water. In Acts 8:38, we are told that both Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch “went down in the water” but this does not appear to be a statement about the mode of baptism, for Phillip went down in the water with the Ethiopian. The phrase simply means that they both walked into the water so that Phillip could baptize him; they didn’t perform the baptism at the shoreline. In other words, βαπτίζω in the New Testament simply means “baptize” pure and simple—it does not convey a mode of baptism.
Beyond this, many passages use the word βαπτίζω in a way that conveys a mode other than immersion. In 1 Cor. 10:2 and 1 Peter 3:20-21, βαπτίζω is used, but in neither case is the baptism by immersion. In 1 Cor. 10, the baptism was by the glory cloud and the sea, and the Israelites were not immersed in either. In 1 Peter 3, Noah and his family were baptized in the ark precisely because they were not immersed in the flood waters. Romans 6:1-4 describes our baptism in terms of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus was not immersed in the ground; he was placed in a tomb above ground. In John 3:23, John describes the location (Aenon near Salim) where John the Baptist chose to baptize as a place with “plenty of water” (literally, “many waters”). This location cannot be identified with certainty, but it is likely to be a place about “seven miles south of Besian,” where there are “seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile.”[14] If this is the case, the phrase “many waters” refers to the seven springs found there. These springs are not deep enough to immerse a person. However, there is plenty of water there to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. It is therefore impossible, if the location of John’s baptism has been identified correctly, that John baptized by immersion.

Col. 2 and Rom. 6 teaches us that the bloodless rite of baptism in the New Testament era symbolized the Christian’s union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and served in the place of physical circumcision. This identification is not made superficially by the mode of baptism, being somehow immersed in and raised out of water. The reason for this identification is that water itself is indicative of judgment and death. Noah was baptized and saved though the waters of judgment surrounding him (1 Pet. 3:20-22). Moses was baptized and saved by crossing through the waters of judgment in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-5). In neither of these examples were those saved immersed in water; the waters surrounded them, bringing death as judgment on others, though God’s people were saved. Just as the Israelites were baptized “into Moses” as he led them through the waters (1 Cor. 10:2), so we are baptized “into Christ” and spared the judgment of eternal death (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12). Our baptism “into Him” thus consecrates us to Him (like circumcision of old) as the One who is sufficient to lead us through the waters of death into eternal salvation. It expresses the union between Christ and His covenanted community.[15]

There is no instance in the Bible where a mode of baptism is prescribed for us. While immersion is a possibility, so is sprinkling and pouring. For instance, in Ezekiel 36:26-28, God speaks of what the New Covenant times will be like. He says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean.” In Hebrews 10:22, we are told, “let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” For pouring, there is a connection in the Gospels between the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; Lk. 3:16; Acts 2:17; Tit. 3:6). While possible examples of sprinkling and pouring can be found in the Bible, none of these passages provide us with a prescribed or commanded mode of baptism. There simply is no mode of baptism commanded in the Bible. All three forms—immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, therefore appear to be acceptable modes of baptism.

The mode of baptism cannot be used as a case against infant baptism. A strong case can be made for modes other than immersion and it is entirely possible to immerse infants.[16]

Conclusion
Certainly there is no proof-text for the practice of infant baptism that would produce an iron-clad case for the practice. If there were, there would be no debate. Yet I believe that a coherent and biblical case for infant baptism can be made. The burden of proof in this debate appears to be on the credo-baptist who seeks to deny that the children of believers are worthy recipients of the covenant sign any longer and introduce a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. However, credo-baptists appear to be unable to demonstrate this discontinuity. Paedo-baptists believe that there is continuity with the Old Covenant in the baptism of infants. There are no passages which teach any discontinuity in this area and there is some confirming evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the book of Acts. Therefore, the practice of infant baptism in the Church today appears to be warranted by Scripture.
This argument for infant baptism is not a Roman Catholic argument. Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration or that baptism in any sense saves. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians believe that baptism is a sign to be given to those who are part of the covenant of grace. A person is not part of the covenant because of baptism; baptism is a sign given to those who are part of the covenant. Those who are part of the covenant are not necessarily saved; rather, children are brought up in the covenant so that they might be raised in the context of the family of believers, so that the church may provide the child with a “climate of plausibility” that would make the Christian faith seem real and vibrant and true. Baptism is administered in anticipation of that time when they will come to faith and receive the forgiveness of their sins and be normal, communing members of Christ’s church.