----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JACKJEFF@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:25 PM
Subject: [soundofgrace] Re: Covenant theology and baptism - Jack to Chad


> Chad:
>
> << The "sign" view of baptism isn't to the exclusion of the "memorial"
view, nor is the "memorial" view to the exclusion of the "sign" view.  It's
"both/and", not "either/or".  In fact, Col. 2 places a close connection
> between baptism and regeneration.  Col. 2 allows for the sign view within
its eschatology: Christ's resurrection is the reality behind regeneration.
God "made (us) alive" together with him"... our regeneration... was secured
by "raised him from the dead"... Christ's resurrection.  Without the
> resurrection, there is no regeneration.  If baptism is tied to the
resurrection of Christ, it is tied to regeneration because the two are one
and the same... our regeneration is our participation in the resurrection of
God (raised "with him").  One cannot speak of the resurrection and our
> participation in it without speaking of regeneration because resurrection
and regeneration are two sides of the same coin. >>
>
> While I find myself in agreement with much of what you have posted above,
I must take issue with the following:
>
> On the relationship between baptism and regeneration you have used the
following phrases: "a close connection", and "tied to".
>
> Unfortunately, I am unable to find any basis for either in the passage in
question.  In point of fact, I would >emphasize the "with him" to be found
in verses 12 (twice), and 13 (also cp. vs. 20).  The passage is referring
>to our co-burial and co-resurrection with Christ in his historical burial
and resurrection.  I doubt that you would >place verse 14 temporally with
our regeneration, and am left wondering how you can consistently place
>verses 12-13 there.

There is parallelism here and its in the parallelism that baptism finds
significance in regeneration.

12 - buried with him in baptism
13 - dead in your trespasses

12 - raised with him through faith
13 - made us alive together with him.

"Made us alive" is regeneration.  Not only is Christ's resurrection the
reality of and the basis for regeneration, baptism is the visible "shadow"
of what has taken place in the past and now in my heart.  Colossians 2 is
nothing more than further development of the same Pauline eschatology of
baptism in Romans 6.

Part of the confusion, and what made baptism so confusing to me growing up
as a GARB kid, is that the scriptures speak of at least 5 baptisms: John's
baptism, Baptism into Christ's death, Spirit's baptism in Acts, Spirit's
baptism of our regeneration, and physical baptism (all of which have
grounding in OT motifs of cleansing/purification and.... maybe...
circumcision... I still haven't reached a conclusion about whether baptism
is an initiation "rite" in a similar sense of circumcision, or whether
circumicision is also connected to the cleansing/purification motif).  And
the confusion is created when we theologize these various baptisms as if
they are different realities since they seem to have different sets of rules
and different functions, etc. etc. Rather than understanding them ALL as
part of the same eschatological reality: Christ's resurrection with the
differences being merely the variety of manifestations.  And because ALL are
part of the same reality (Christ's resurrection), what takes place in the
temporal (Spirit's baptism-regeneration/my baptism) is inseparable from the
eternal.  To speak of one is to have the other in view.

So you're right in one sense... I see no basis for making sharp distinctions
between the various baptisms, because I do not believe the scriptures make
sharp distinctions.  The Catholics and Presbyterians do not have flawed
views of baptism because their distinctions aren't sharp enough.  They have
flawed views because (IMHO) they have flawed views of the meaning of the
resurrection (the problem with Catholics is always in imputation and
regeneration; the Presbyterians in not allowing the resurrection to
change/progress the redemptive-historical use of "family" and "child").

>Spiritual baptism, the reality signified in water baptism, is here spelled
out as involving our union with Christ in >his finished work, specifically
his burial and resurrection.  This union, that is, our union with Christ's
burial and >resurrection, are not explained here as taking place at our
regeneration,

Then what does "made us alive" in verse 13 mean?  Paul is meshing the
temporal and eternal together, IMHO.

> but necessarily are seen as contemporaneous with his burial and
resurrection via that union.  It would seem >to me that you must ignore, or
at best minimize the "with him"s in this passage in your attempt to place
what it >speaks of at (or, in) our regeneration.

I believe my "with him's" are maximal, not minimal.  Our temporal
regeneration is our eternal "participation" in Christ's resurrection.  One
(Christ's resurrection) necessitates the other (our regeneration).

> On the relationship between resurrection and regeneration you have written
as follows: "the reality behind", >"the two are one and the same", and "two
sides of the same coin".
>
> This seems quite inconsistent to me.  You have two realities. You speak of
one as "the reality behind" the >other.  I am at a loss for an explanation
of how the two could be "one and the same" at the same time as one >of them
is "the reality behind" the other.  How could something be "the reality
behind" itself?

Because Christ's resurrection is both the cause and source of our
regeneration.  That's the beauty of Pauline eschathology: the cause IS the
effect.  Vos (Pauline Eschatology) is critical in understanding this
paradox.  Vos always holds this tension in suspension.  The resurrection is
the vortex of all redemptive history and therefore all of theology.

Yet the resurrection's end is in Christ's ultimate exaltation in
consummation: The Eternal Life of Lamb and Bride.  The resurrection is the
culmination of the Christ event in which the Eternal broke into the
temporal.  It is through our union in Christ via the Spirit that the
resurrection is both the cause and source of our regeneration and eternal
life.  Our regeneration, then, is the resurrection's intrusion into our
temporal lives (I believe this is what Paul was getting at when he said in 1
Cor. 15:17 that if Christ is not raised, we are still in our sins; Christ is
not merely the firstfruits of the final resurrection, but also the
firstfruits of our own regeneration... and in that passage, both the
resurrection and our regeneration are guarantees of the final resurrection
in glory) .

>I agree that there is a connection and a relationship between them.
Theologically I do not see how they can be >divided.  However, I must insist
that there is a distinction between them which must be maintained.

I would differ... if they cannot be separated theologically, then they
cannot be separated exegetically.  Each presuppose the other in true
redemptive historical biblical theology.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH