Understanding Four Views on Baptism (Counterpoints: Church Life) | 
 enlarge | Creators: John Castelein, Robert Kolb, Thomas J. Nettles, Richard Pratt Jr., John H. Armstrong, Paul E. Engle
Publisher: Zondervan
Category: Book
List Price: $14.99
Buy New: $8.62
You Save: $6.37 (42%)
New (29) Used (7) from $8.57
Rating:  6 reviews
Sales Rank: 62989
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.7
ISBN: 0310262674
Dewey Decimal Number: 234.161
EAN: 9780310262671
ASIN: 0310262674
Publication Date: February 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Christians have long differed with one another on both the meaning and the practice of water baptism. Using the classic Counterpoints forum of presentation-critique-response, this insightful book explores four prominent views of baptism held by different branches of Protestantism: Baptist, Christian Church/Church of Christ, Lutheran, and Reformed.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1 more reviews...
 Jesus had no snorkel, either, but he was unafraid November 2, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
The four views represented in this discussion are "Baptist," "Lutheran," "Reformed," and "Christian."
All four denominational tags are, of course, misleading. Not all "Baptist" Christians still believe in dunking; not all "Lutheran" Christians still accept Martin Luther's injunction to kill Jews and homosexuals; most "Reformed" Christians gave up on reform, centuries ago; nor do the "Christian" Christians take literally Christ's statement that to be a Christian you must give all that you own to the poor (hey, that's not "Christianity," that's *communism*!).
Roman Catholic views of baptism are not represented in this all-Protestant discussion. In fact, the book's Protestant editors truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that Catholics ought to shut the heck up.
With Catholics out of the way, the Baptists handily win this 4-way debate--not just because it's is their area of specialization, but also because the Baptists have got Scripture on their side. For purposes of personal hygiene, granted, a shower works as well as the tub. But for a symbolic expression of washed-away sin, nothing works as well as a so-called "dunking" (although the better term is "immersion").
Over the centuries, tens of thousands of Christians have killed, or been killed, over this hotly-contested sacrament. You may now consider that contest OVER! Tom Nettles here scores big-time for the Baptists. The question is not: "What WOULD Jesus do?" (e.g., if he were a Lutheran, or Reformed), but rather: "What DID Jesus do?"
Tom's argument, in brief: Jesus knew he had no choice but to be baptised by immersion - not, granted, as a sign that his sins were washed away (because he had none to wash), but rather, to set a good example to the Jews, and to future Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and other sprinkling-systems, that total immersion is the only way to go. Jesus could have got himself sprinkled in any house, synagogue, or town square; or just squirted in the face, for that matter. Instead, Jesus walked through the desert, from Jerusalem to the Jordan River, to be immersed. That says a lot.
Then came a big surprise. Jesus, after he was baptised in the Jordan, "stood straight up out of the water; and, lo, Heaven opened, and he watched as the holy Ghost of God descended as a dove and landed on him" (Matt. 3:16).
Trust me: Matthew is not making it up, I was there when it happened. I saw it myself, and I was amazed. Here's why: this was not just some large local pigeon who happened to dive for food in that exact place at that exact moment. It was the full-fledged holy Ghost, whom I had not seen with my own eyes on this planet in 500 years, not since the days of Zechariah Ben-Jehoida, when the holy Ghost did the very same thing - he descended from Heaven as a large dove and landed on the head of Zechariah. But on that occasion, the hard-hearted King Jehoash, who thought it was probably just a trained bird of some sort, and that Zechariah himself was a loud-mouthed prophetical nuisance, ordered the Jews to stone Zechariah to death in the Temple courtyard; which they did (the holy Ghost escaped injury); after which, the assassins' grandchildren built a monument to Zechariah in the Kidron Valley, which tourists can still visit to this day (2 Chron. 24:20-21).
So when I saw the holy Ghost coming down from Heaven that day to land on Jesus' head, my first thought was, "Oh, no, not again!" But this time, no one picked up any rocks, for there was an even-bigger surprise: "Out of Heaven came a Voice, which said, 'This is my beloved Son [i.e., Jesus, not the pigeon], in whom I am well pleased!'" (Matt. 3:17).
Note: the voice from Heaven was "well-pleased" that Jesus chose total immersion over sprinkling.
If you had been there and heard how the voice thundered, I would not have to tell you this was definitely the Voice of Father Yahweh. The Virgin Mary and I both looked up when we heard it. I did not actually see Yahveh, and I don't think Mary did; but when Jesus looked up toward the clouds, he broke into a big, "Hi, Father, how am I doing so far?" kind of smile; and he jumped up and down and waved, very excitedly. I found it quite touching to see that - even though I do not always agree with them - to see that kind of a bond between Father and Son, and the holy Ghost flying so, zipping back and forth between the two of them like the happiest darn bird you ever saw in your life (Mark 1:10-11).
For a moment, I also felt a kind of wistfulness, a kind of half-conscious, melancholy wish that the Lord would say, "And do you see that other one over there on the riverbank? Although he has rebelled against Me, I still love him." That is how I knew, deep down in my heart of hearts, or in the depths of my unconscious, or somewhere, that I must still feel the sting of His rejection. I wished that I, too, could be forgiven for my sins, and be baptized by immersion. (For one thing, it was a blisteringly hot day, and most of us watching from the riverbank were sweating like football players, even Mary.) But the Voice went suddenly silent, and the holy Ghost flew back up into the clouds, and Jesus dried himself off. And then we all had lunch.
Joseph the carpenter did not attend his stepson's baptismal service that day, which is just as well. Joseph was not a bad man, nor even a bad Jew, but he was often confused. He misunderstood the necessity, not just of immersion-baptism, but the necessity of the Immaculate Conception. Joe the Carpenter had very traditional beliefs concerning biblical heterosexual monogamy, and his faith could not be shaken by such pagan stories as Leda and the Swan, much less by what he called "My wife's story of 'Mary and the Pigeon." I am therefore glad, like the Virgin Mary, that her husband Joseph was never allowed to see the holy Ghost with his own eyes. If Joseph had been down at the riverbank that day when Jesus got baptised - if he had seen that large dove descending from Heaven toward his wife and learned it was "the holy Ghost" - Joseph would have grabbed the nearest stone, and a slingshot, and blasted his rival out of the sky; offering the lame excuse that he did it in defense of his wife's "honour." Joseph, young and impetuous, was just itching to see the feathers fly, because (in Joseph's words) he could never forgive "the liberties that were taken by that bird."
But that gets us into a whole different theological debate. The important point here is that Jesus was immersed, not sprinkled, and his decision received the unequivocal endorsement of the other two members of the Holy Trinity, and I just don't see how anyone can argue with that.
- L.
 Dr. John D. Castelein and the CoC are dangerous heretics August 31, 2007
1 out of 15 found this review helpful
This book is a very good introduction to the main evangelical views on baptism. The book contains four views: 1) the traditional Baptist view (Nettles); 2) the traditional Reformed view (Pratt); 3) the traditional Lutheran view (Kolb); and 4) the "Christian" Church view (Castelein). The essays by Nettles and Pratt are the best ones. Both make a good case for their respective traditions (though, of course, I agree with Nettles more since I'm a Baptist too). Though Pratt and Kolb do a valiant job in defending their view that infant baptism is Scriptural, I don't believe history and exegesis supports the concept of infant baptism. The nature of redemptive history and exegesis of particular texts demands that only believers should be baptized.
The major concern I have with this book is that one of the contributors (Castelein) unashamedly denies the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. On page 132, he writes: "Working with James's definition of faith, in contrast to Paul's definition, salvation by 'faith only' is simply impossible." However, Paul also states that those who reject the true gospel (like Castelein) will also find that salvation is impossible (Gal 1:8-9). Dr. Castelein and all those CoC members who explicitly deny justification by faith alone are heretics and will not find salvation unless they repent of their grievous error. Adding one's own works to the finished work of Christ on the cross is an insult to God.
Great Discussion of Christian Views About Baptism May 23, 2007
12 out of 12 found this review helpful
This is a great addition to the Counterpoints series. The format of previous volumes is retained. Each theologian has an essay about his view of baptism, and the others give brief replies.
The first one up at the plate is Thomas Nettles, who represents the Baptist view. He points out that the pattern for baptism is that it is something which follows belief. Therefore, Nettles would not baptize an infant. Nettles struggles somewhat as he tries to explain how difficult texts such as 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16 fit into his system.
The Reformed view is presented by Richard Pratt, Jr. He contends that infant baptism has a similar function to circumcision in the Old Testament in that it incorporates the child into the visible community (even though it does not confer saving grace on the child).
Nettles and Castelein countered Pratt by noting that Pratt placed an equal amount of emphasis on the Westminster Confession as he did the Bible, and that non_Reformed Christians would object to this. They note that our doctrine should come straight from Scripture.
Robert Kolb presents the Lutheran view, and it is very similar to the Reformed perspective. The main difference is that Lutherans believe that babies ARE born again when they are baptized. Nettles counters this by noting that that there are no known instances of salvation in the New Testament apart from hearing and responding to the gospel, an argument which struck me as quite cogent.
John Castelein presents the Church of Christ view. His presentation is very similar to the Baptist view. The one difference is that Castelein contends that baptism is the occasion for justification, a teaching that Pratt and Nettles effectively challenge.
Armstrong has a short essay encouraging continued dialogue, then there are appendixes which list all the scriptures about baptism and some of the confessional statements issued by the Church in the past.
I don't think that any one of the writers delievered a knockout punch, but my own understanding of Scripture fits best with the view of Thomas Nettles. I am surprised that non one discussed Acts 2:41, which says that "all who accepted the message were baptized." I wonder how infant baptizers would respond to this.
But I thought the essays were crisp and clear, and I like how each one ended with practical questions that people might ask, along with some good answers. Buy this book if you are sifting through your understanding of baptism.
 Understanding Baptism- A Review April 2, 2007
3 out of 9 found this review helpful
This book is helpful and accomplishes it's task of presenting 4 views on Baptism and in essence salvation. I am taken back at Richard Pratt stating on page 115 that the Lutheran view, which holds to Baptismal regeneration, is closer to the Reformed view than the Reformed Baptist Tom Nettles presentation. Pratt must deem ecclesiological ritual more important than soteriology.
balanced, accessible & well organized March 8, 2007
9 out of 11 found this review helpful
This book is a balanced, accessible and well organized summary of four major views on baptism. I had some questions about my church's stance on baptism in relation to other Protestant traditions, but found that most of the material out there is either heavily biased or overly academic and lengthy. This material is set up in a point/counter-point formula with each of the four authors succinctly articulating their view on baptism followed by a response from the other three authors. The views represented are: Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, and the Church of Christ. Although it is clear that each of the authors is firmly committed to their view, they disagree respectfully with each other and are even able to find some common ground. This allows the reader to quickly and easily understand the arguments for all four positions. If you've got some questions about baptism, this book is a great place to start.
|
|
|
