You said, “If you follow your argument out logically then you must say the following, the Spirit comes after the sign which comes after the stipulation.”

This is not a necessary conclusion. Although baptism is a command of Christ, it is not necessary for salvation. When we are saved we receive the Holy Spirit as the seal of our inheritance, not when we are baptized.

You said, “If you are to read this verse in that woodenly literalistic sense then you must, to be consistent with your interpretation, say that you must repent, then be baptized, and then you will receive the Holy Spirit in that exact order, which would then refute your argument that the order is repent, receive the Spirit, be baptized.”

I assume that by “this verse” you are referring to Acts 2:38.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

If my “woodenly literalistic” interpretation of this verse requires this exact order of events, then your interpretation would also require that baptism be a precondition to the remission of sins. I do not recall this verse being mentioned at all, however, so I am unsure why you would bring it up. I do not believe that the intended teaching of this verse is found in the order of events. Please explain to me how this order of events is required in order to be consistent with my woodenly literalistic interpretation.

If you follow your argument out logically then you must say the following, the Spirit comes after the sign which comes after the stipulation.

If you are to read this verse in that woodenly literalistic sense then you must, to be consistent with your interpretation, say that you must repent, then be baptized, and then you will receive the Holy Spirit in that exact order, which would then refute your argument that the order is repent, receive the Spirit, be baptized.

You said, “Indeed we have been raised from our spiritual death by baptism”

This statement leads me to believe that you believe that baptism raises us from our spiritual death. If you do not believe that, then please correct my understanding of your statement.

You said, “I already explained the way in which baptism saves and in which way it does not in the very previous comment and to repeat your charge as an open and shut case is to have a theology of baptism that does not treat as canonical 1 peter 3:21.”

Please explain to me how I am not treating 1 Peter 3:21 as canonical. I am not sure what you are trying to say to me here.

You said, “I have presented many issues which I do not believe have been addressed above”

I would appreciate it if you would restate those issues that you do not feel have been addressed.

I agree that we should all search the scriptures to see if what is being presented is indeed so. I comend you for basing your views on your understanding of scripture. That is the only way that we can come to agreement. I pray that God will enlighten both of us to a clearer understanding of His Word.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Covenantal-Infant-Baptism/dp/0875525547/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208111195&sr=8-3

The key to this verse is found in the parenthetical element. Baptism does not save us in the sense that it puts away the filth of the flesh, but rather in the sense that baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.”

You said, “You have demonstrated influence by a very particular tradition, not just Anabaptist but the English Baptist splinter of it (then transferred to America) as you insist on a gloss for baptism (immerse) that does not exist in other traditions even within Anabaptism”

As I have explained previously, immersion is the only means that would be able to explain the need for “much water” in baptism. I am not basing my view upon traditions, but on my understanding of God’s word.

You said, “and a tradition whose gloss does not adhere to the context of earlier examples of the use of the word in Scripture as we have explored in Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, and Heb 9:10,13.”

I am not sure how the verses you mentioned effect the view that baptism should be done by immersion. Simply because the Greek word is the same does not mean that it means the same thing. Think of the English word “day.” We can use this word to mean a literal 24 hour day, or we can use it to mean only in the daytime, or many other ways. We cannot say that just because the word for wash and the word for baptize are the same word, that it means that they are done in the same way. Actually, the fact that they are the same word could be used to support my view as well. The fact that they are the same word indicates that baptism is also a washing, only in a different sense, it represents a spiritual washing.

You said, “I think you have broadened the promise too far and would have trouble finding Baptists that would even agree with putting baptism and repentance in the promise (baptism is the sign, repentance the stipulation)”

Baptism is the sign and repentance is the stipulation. However, in this relationship the sign comes after the stipulation. Baptism is the outward sign of the circumcision of the heart, but like you said, just because one has the sign does not require that they have the inward conversion. In fact, it does not even make it more likely. In fact, it does absolutely nothing towards their salvation! It is just a sign. Baptism can be done before salvation, but that is an instance of a false profession, because it is a false sign. To demonstrate the sign of repentance without true inward repentance

You said, “Those are the only ones we can subjectively assume have the promise. God is not limited by the sign but remembered by, invoked through and taught through the sign.”

So baptism doesn’t even do what circumcision did. Circumcision placed those circumcised in a covenant relationship with God, but baptism does not. You say that baptism places us in a covenant relationship with God in that if we meet the requirement (faith) then we will receive the promise (the Holy Spirit). However, baptism does not do this, because even those not baptized are in that position. Baptism is the sign of an inward burial of the old man, and a rising to walk in the newness of life. This is what baptism IS, but it DOES nothing. The requirement of faith and the promise of the Holy Spirit is available for all. Even those who are not baptized. So baptism does not place us in THAT covenant, because we are already in THAT covenant.

You said, “You said that “putting of the body of the sins of the flesh” does not refer to baptism. I think that cannot be maintained by a plain simple reading of the text. Now, we must distinguish between the inward reality (the inward baptism Christ performs on us does save us) from the outward sign pointing to it. Indeed we have been raised from our spiritual death by baptism, let us not correct Paul”

Are you saying that baptism saves us? If baptism raises us from spiritual death, then baptism saves us. Paul did not say that baptism raises from spiritual death, he said that it SYMBOLIZES such raising.

When I refer to tradition, it is not with distain for tradition, but with a recognition that Scripture is above it and authoritative in a way that tradition is not. To claim to not be influenced by tradition at all is naïve, as we are all influenced by the tradition of the English language and American traditional culture. You have demonstrated influence by a very particular tradition, not just Anabaptist but the English Baptist splinter of it (then transferred to America) as you insist on a gloss for baptism (immerse) that does not exist in other traditions even within Anabaptism (others such as some Mennonite groups allow pouring) and a tradition whose gloss does not adhere to the context of earlier examples of the use of the word in Scripture as we have explored in Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, and Heb 9:10,13.

That said, evaluating your tradition cannot make you chuck it for no tradition but for another more in line with the Scriptures. Though I found that in Reformed Presbyterianism I do not adhere to everything in the Westminster as there are a few parts that I believe are not mandated by Scripture because the Scripture should be always revising our preconceptions and prejudices we bring to the text.

You wrote- “Have you looked at what “the promise” mentioned in this verse is? Here is the promise: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

I think you have broadened the promise too far and would have trouble finding Baptists that would even agree with putting baptism and repentance in the promise (baptism is the sign, repentance the stipulation) So what is the promise? I would prefer the identification of the promise in the article above: the gift of the Holy Spirit. Also, I said covenants have three parts above, I meant parties, promises and stipulations – accompanied with a sign. Sorry.

You said that “putting of the body of the sins of the flesh” does not refer to baptism. I think that cannot be maintained by a plain simple reading of the text. Now, we must distinguish between the inward reality (the inward baptism Christ performs on us does save us) from the outward sign pointing to it. Indeed we have been raised from our spiritual death by baptism, let us not correct Paul – yet we can also mistake the distinction between inward baptism and outward baptism if we forget the lesson of circumcision from the OT – that inward circumcision needs to accompany the outward sign. (See Gen 17:8-12 with Deut 30:6).

You wrote – “So since you believe that baptism is this sign, do you also believe that only those with this sign can receive the promise?”

Those are the only ones we can subjectively assume have the promise. God is not limited by the sign but remembered by, invoked through and taught through the sign. Yet, sovereignly God decides who He will regenerate. The vast majority of the regenerate have the sign by virtue of their previous membership in the covenant or will receive the sign by the community.

You said, “Again, covenant membership does not require regnereation in the OT and nowhere was that changed in the new testament, but children were renewed as being in the covenant in Acts 2:39″

Here is Acts 2:39. “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

Have you looked at what “the promise” mentioned in this verse is? Here is the promise: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” The promise that if we repent and are baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, we will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This promise is for everyone. For us, for our children, for those who are afar off, but all of these (us, our children, and those afar off) are qualified by the statement “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The promise is to our children, but not to our children as children. The promise is that if our children repent and are baptized for the remission of their sins, then they also will receive the gift. This verse is not speaking about infants, because, although the promise is available for them in the future, they cannot meet the condition of the promise, namely: “repent.” The promise is only for those whom the Lord our God shall call.

You said, “First, how much more proof do you need that baptism is the circumcision of Christ than Paul’s own words (Col 2:11-12).

Here is Col 2:11-12. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

In verse 11, Paul is speaking about salvation not baptism. This is shown by the fact that He says that this curcumcision made without hands is “in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.” This cannot be said of baptism, as baptism does not cleanse us from sin. Therefore, the circumcision of Christ is salvation, not baptism. In verse 12, Paul goes on in the sequence to say that we are buried with Him in baptism. First of all, I want to point out that this verse describes what baptism symbolizes. It says that we are BURIED WITH HIM (Christ) in baptism. Infants that are baptized are not sympolizing the putting off of the old man. Secondly, verse 12 is not continuing verse 11 by describing what is the circumcision of Christ (as is proven by the fact that verse 11 itself says that this circumcision does something that baptism cannot do: cleanse us from sin). Verse 12 is continuing in the process showing that after we have this circumcision of Christ, we are buried with Him in baptism. Here we actually have proof that baptism comes after salvation.

You said, “If that is not enough, nothing will be until you are willing to let the Scriptures challenge your tradition.”

Actually, I have not mentioned tradition at all. In fact, you are the one who has used tradition to attempt to prove your view. You said, “believed in the early church and practices for 1500 years.” You are correct, it is irrelevant what we have done in the past, or what other have done in the past. What matters is what the Bible says, and I believe I have given you an answer for the scriptures you have mentioned.

You said, “The promise is given to all who are given the sign but not granted to all who have the sign unless the stipulation is met, the stipulation being believe/repent.”

So since you believe that baptism is this sign, do you also believe that only those with this sign can receive the promise? Perhaps I should ask you what you believe the promise in the New Covenant is. I think that was what I was getting at back when I asked what membership in the Covenant community did for you. But anyway, what do you believe is the promise of the New Covenant.

That doesn’t make sense. children are included but children are not included. Again, covenant membership does not require regnereation in the OT and nowhere was that changed in the new testament, but children were renewed as being in the covenant in Acts 2:39

“That is what you are attempting to prove, so please do so. Circumcision was for all the Children of Israel, with whom God had made a covenant to be their God if they would follow Him, and that they would inherit the land promised to Abraham. Baptism is for all the Children of God, with whom Christ has made a covenant to be their savior, and that they will inherit eternal life with Him in heaven.”

First, how much more proof do you need that baptism is the circumcision of Christ than Paul’s own words (Col 2:11-12), believed in the early church and practices for 1500 years. If that is not enough, nothing will be until you are willing to let the Scriptures challenge your tradition. I had to be willing to do that to come to the biblical covenantal view of baptism myself, when before I was a Baptist and believer’s baptism proponant.

As for what a covenant is check out Jay Bennett’s post above. Covenants are contracts. Covenants are made up of three parts: promise, sign, stipulation. The promise is given to all who are given the sign but not granted to all who have the sign unless the stipulation is met, the stipulation being believe/repent. Thus, Paul can say not all of Israel is Israel in Romans 9. Merely having the sign does not guarentee the promise. Same with the church – not all baptized members are baptized members – meaning just as not all outwardly circumcised Israel is inwardly circumcised Israel – so not all outwardly baptized Christians are inwardly baptized Christians.