For those of you who are following the sad degeneration of the PCA into a chest-thumping, savorless impotency, I thought I’d share this little bit about baptism from Robert Rayburn regarding the SJC’s incompetent attempt to railroad Dr. Peter Leithart:
At the beginning of Presbytery’s thirty minutes before the panel Presbytery’s respondent was told in quite a peremptory way to read Romans 6:1-7. “That is not about baptism,” he was told. I assume they meant that it was not about water baptism, the rite of baptism. This is the view now represented in the panel’s reasoning [C v]. Gentlemen, do you really want to go on record saying that the PCA does not believe that Romans 6 is about water baptism? That is a conclusion you will find in no reputable commentary on Romans: from Hodge to Murray, from Bruce to Cranfield, from Ridderbos to Moo. Let’s not make ourselves a laughingstock. Is PCA baptism really so light, so weightless, so invisible that it cannot be found even where it is the explicit subject of a text of Holy Scripture? However else one may account for the reality of baptized unbelief, Romans 6 is most assuredly about water baptism and it is an offense to the entire tradition of Christian biblical study to deny this!
You may read the whole thing here, if you so desire. Me, I’m going to go make a tasty beverage out of the water boiling on my stove. There’s a metaphor to be had there, no doubt.
Hat Tip: Credenda/Agenda