“The need to speak biblically to the people of God is central . . . This means that there is a sense in which we must insist that the people of God can be divided into two groups — tares and wheat (Matt. 13:25ff), sheep and goats (Matt. 25:32, those who have the Spirit and those who do not not (1 John 4:13), and so on . . . And, at the same time, there is another sense (a different sense) in which we must insist that genuine branches can be cut out of the Vine which is Christ (John 15:1-6) or lopped off the olive tree of the new Israel (Rom. 11:17ff), or that wheat can fail to grow to fruition (Matt. 13:3ff) . . . We must not pit these metaphors against one another for the sake of a system; we must use them all in different circumstances, as appropriate. We do not juxtapose them and choose which set we want to preach on. We layer them, accepting them all” (Against the Church, pp. 151-152).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
“The need to speak biblically to the people of God is central . . . ” Certainly, but “the people of the God” in every one of these examples were the Jews, and it was possible to be a Jew and not be regenerate, just as it was possible to be a Gentile and be regenerate (Naaman the Syrian, etc.). What was needed was not a new identity within which is was possible to be unregenerate, but an identity of regeneration which recognised both the Jewish and Gentile believer — baptism. So, none of these metaphors can be applied to… Read more »
I wouldn’t necessarily pit these against each other as I am not certain they refer they refer to similar groups. The vine, olive branch and failure to fruit seem to be directed at believers. The tares are unbelievers (and possible wolves) within the church. And I wonder if the sheep and goats is not directed at the church at all but to the world. They are surprised by Jesus’ comments after all.
Though perhaps you see me doing what you are warning against here?
Michael: Can you give proof from the *texts* of Scripture that paedobaptism is wrong, and not that it just offends your symbology?
Michael, one of the examples above used the olive branches of Romans 11. Why are the Gentile branches in the Church Olive Tree warned against committing the very same sins that were committed by Jews in the Israel Olive Tree? And why are they all the same tree?
Pastor Wilson, I think we have to take these symbols in the light of the clear doctrinal passages, not the other way around. Plus, as mentioned, the context of Romans 9-11 is clearly first century, the Firstfruits Church. This is about the establishment of a new Jew-Gentile priesthood, so perhaps stretching it beyond AD70 is beyond Paul’s intent. I would say that since there are no longer any Jews, that there are no longer any “natural” branches. It is no longer possible to be a member of the people of God by one’s natural birth. Under the Old Covenant, the… Read more »
Seth B. – apologies. Proof texting isn’t sufficient. It’s like throwing jigsaw pieces at each other and arguing over what each piece means in isolation. My strategy is to look at the picture on the lid. My theology of baptism begins in Genesis 1 and builds from there. That probably sounds pretentious, but the Bible is a fractal, and thus “self-correcting.” It has the same architecture at every level. Currently working on a book that lays out the logic. It is incredibly beautiful.
Michael Bull wrote: “Baptism, table and the commission are about who can go out, who can preach, who can serve, and who can bless the children as New Covenant angels.” Michael’s attempt to redefine baptism has been noted before. Michael does not want baptism to refer to our common and basic union with Christ (and Christ’s death and resurrection)(see Gal 3:27, Romans 6:3, Col 2:11-12) because that is much too broad, and it might include infant children. So Michael imagines baptism as a distinct mark for a subcategory of believers “who can go out, who can preach”. In other words,… Read more »
Michael Bull wrote: “Plus, as mentioned, the context of Romans 9-11 is clearly first century, the Firstfruits Church. This is about the establishment of a new Jew-Gentile priesthood, so perhaps stretching it beyond AD70 is beyond Paul’s intent.” It’s obvious that Michael sees the dilemma. There is just one Olive Tree in Romans 11, and God is pruning natural branches (ethnic Israel) and grafting wild branches (Gentiles). Contrary to Michael’s claims, this means that the New Covenant still makes distinctions about who is in or out of that tree (whose Root is Christ). So Michael imagines that this Olive Tree… Read more »
Thanks Katecho I did answer most of these objections of yours in the other post. Did you read Jeremiah 31 for me? Can you see the context? Regarding the fulfilment of Romans 9-11 in the first century, I am following the interpretation of James B. Jordan (a paedobaptist), which you can read here: http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/library/the-future-of-israel-re-examined/ Beyond that, it seems my position has actually gone over your head. I would put this down to the failure of teaching biblical architecture and its fulfilment in the people of God. And for the umpteenth time, your precious Acts 2 reference comes from a sermon… Read more »
Katecho – excellent post’s. Question if you have time. Is regeneration then inseparably connected with Baptism?
Steve Perry asks: “Question if you have time. Is regeneration then inseparably connected with Baptism?” I think regeneration can refer to an event (“the regeneration”, as in Matthew 19:28). But I think Steve’s question may be a reference to Titus: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, …” — Titus 3:5-6 In this passage regeneration is clearly linked with baptism. Though I would point… Read more »
Katecho writes: “We are baptized into Christ (His death and His resurrection), which is the basis for our regeneration.” This isn’t the order in which this happens in the Bible, unless the Gospel has been redefined so that “union with Christ” no longer depends upon a response to the call to repent and believe. Paedobaptism twists and redefines everything in its path: “Church”, “Christian”, “Gospel”, “regeneration”, “faith”, “union with Christ.” It’s bad news. Baptism does not correspond to the circumcision of the flesh (natural birth), but the circumcision of the heart (supernatural birth). When you use the word “baptism” you… Read more »
katecho wrote: “We are baptized into Christ (His death and His resurrection), which is the basis for our regeneration.” but was intending to write: “We are baptized into Christ (His death and His resurrection, which is the basis for our regeneration).” Thanks to Michael Bull for the opportunity to clarify myself. I don’t hold to baptismal regeneration in any sense that baptism accomplishes regeneration directly. Christ alone accomplished our regeneration, and we must be in Him. Baptism is the sign of God’s ownership of us, publicly indicating that we are in union with the Regenerate One. My point was that… Read more »