Humbly Differing With Authorities over “World” and “Water”

My Bible study sometimes takes the form of intense study of a particular passage as I seek to better understand it. To this end I have been studying John 3 for several months now as I read it over and over, study, and map out the flow of thought of the account as well as any theological arguments being made while taking into account every context: The cultural context of the human author and the immediate audience, the intent of God in his revelation of himself in the given passage to the audience of all men knowing that they come from cultures different than the one of the intended audience, the internal context of the passage such as the context of the immediate flow of thought as well as the larger flow of thought.  All this is with the mind that God may allow and plan for a misunderstanding among cultures for a period of time. For example, we see the preservation of the scriptures even through the period of syncretism of the Roman Catholic Church that lasted centuries before the Reformation. 

The reason I bring the RCC up is that the Reformation was a return to soteriological orthodoxy. The RCC soteriology is a direct affront to clear Pauline theology. However, they provided the source of theological authority for a long time. The authority was simply wrong.

On the other hand, there is no small amount of mistaken theology even among Protestants. There are plenty of resources available to help discern the true meaning of the scriptures. The reason people don’t get it right is the presence of sin in general, but which is often cloaked in good intentions. In other words, people have cultural and philosophical sensibilities that the literal culture of the Bible offends. It is important to study it diligently and to refer often to those who have studied much with a heart for the glory of God lest we fall into theological error, the center of our theological considerations drifting according to our desires rather than remaining fixed on a love of the Truth of God even as we submit to him.

So then, by what manner did the Reformers of old deny the theological authority of the Roman Catholic Church? And by what manner do we challenge any point of theology of orthodox Protestants today? We know that there are central matters than must not be compromised, for this provides that which defines Christian orthodoxy. But we also know that there are matters most debatable that are not central to the Christian faith or necessary for establishing our relationship in the atonement with Jesus Christ. It is in this matter that I make my observation on John 3:5, and indeed why I began studying this chapter this past summer.

On the streets of London as people passed by to whom we ministered, my wife in prayer for them became aware of a possible meaning for “world” in John 3:16. “For God so loved the world…” The classical debate between Calvinism and Arminianism involves the word “world” here translated from the Greek “cosmos”. Cosmos is a general term and can take on different meanings depending on its context. It’s rather a mistake to base any theology on such a word. Arminians claim that it means absolutely every individual person. Calvinists claim it doesn’t mean every individual, but merely every people group. Arminians claim John 3:16 as the irrefutable source of their soteriology. Therefore, they mean that there is no other way to define “cosmos”. Calvinists, in response, say that we must look elsewhere in scripture to understand what “cosmos” means and find a meaning for the scope of the word in response to Arminians. Since the Reformation, theologians have interpreted this word depending on their orientation with either Calvinism or Arminianism not thinking that there may be some other import.

Well, when my wife saw the people to whom we were ministering, she saw a challenge in the verse. “For God so loved the ‘world’ that he gave…” She saw the people to whom we were ministering as the ‘world’ and was challenged to love them as God does: even as he gave his son and he was sent, so we were sent to minister in some sacrificial way. And so the meaning actually fits pretty  well with Christ’s line of reasoning to Nicodemus. Of all the orthodox Biblical commentators I find, not one of them save an obscure reference or two in one even comes close to understanding the use of the word ‘cosmos’ in this context. The logic is simple: Christ came from God, as Nicodemus rightly observed, into this world. He thought he came only to teach. But he couldn’t accept his teaching, for his teaching was that of the Messiah and that his purpose to save the world from sin demanded their faith. In this context, the ‘world’ is the place of sinful men that God loves and where he sent his Son. There is no other meaning indicated by the context and I contend that it is a disservice to the scriptural text to import other meaning in an attempt to validate one theology or another.

Now, back up several verses; Verse 5. What does it mean to be “born of water”? Let me go through my process with you.

I read this verse. Then I read the surrounding verses. I read all of chapter three, even down to where it was talking about Jesus and John both baptizing. However, the context Jesus set up is that there are two births: “Unless one is born again [first one birth then another] one cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus doesn’t understand this so Jesus restates another way “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” and elaborates, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” My first thought is that “water” is one birth and “Spirit” is another birth. If “Spirit” in verse 5 is “Spirit” in verse 6 then “water” in verse 5 is “flesh” in verse 6. How can this be? The best explanation is that he was referring to the water of physical human birth. 

However, most of the commentators I read say that “water” means baptism. Apparently this goes back to the debate over whether baptism saves people or not. Those who believe it does say that “water” cannot be interpreted any other way and that it means that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. In response, those who say that baptism is merely a symbol argue that it is representative of our salvific relationship with God. 

So I consider this. There are three options: either the phrase “water and Spirit” are dichotomous, synonymous, or additive. If dichotomous, then they are different things that either represent opposites or two halves of a whole. If synonymous, then they are the same thing – period. If additive, then they are basically the same thing except on different levels.

Those who interpret this as water baptism required for salvation either interpret this dichotomously or synonymously. If dichotomously, they say that one must be baptized and also the Spirit must fill them. If synonymously, they say that water baptism causes the Spirit to fill the person.

Those who interpret this as water baptism symbolic of salvation interpret this as almost exclusively additive. However, the additive is backwards. We submit to water baptism because the Holy Spirit has indwelt us. The problem is that you would have to understand that we must be baptized in order to be saved. Most Protestant commentators I’ve read don’t address this. I have seen an interpretation that went into rather subjective symbolism in order to get around this problem. The symbolism he portrayed was okay, but he didn’t get it from this text. 

And that’s the biggest problem with importing water baptism into this verse. Sure, later in the chapter we read about Jesus and John baptizing. But it doesn’t fit the flow of Jesus’ response to Nicodemus. Well, I consider that perhaps Jesus isn’t restating the dichotomy and expounding on it in verse 6. Perhaps he is only talking about water being some symbol for the Spirit. Perhaps Jesus was referring to the ministry he was involved with in baptizing people (even though he really didn’t do the baptizing – his disciples did). But I don’t see how it comports with everything else he says to Nicodemus. To be sure, the baptism of John the Baptist was a call for Jews to repent and return to the core of their faith: the coming of the promised Messiah. Baptism was what the only thing non-Jews had to do that Jews didn’t already do in order to be Jews. Jews were born Jews. Non-Jews were not. In order to become Jews by faith, non-Jews had to (and still have to today) become circumcised (if men), offer a sacrifice (a finger-prick today because they don’t have the temple), and be baptized. The baptism is as though they are being born a Jew since Jews are Jews by birth. If Jesus is referring to baptism, then he is therefore referring to the water of birth. In this case, it would be both dichotomous and figuratively synonymous.

To be sure, verse 5 and verse 6 each have different information that gives us clues and I haven’t gone into every detail. For example, I have to ask if it is coherent to say that one must have a physical birth as well as a spiritual birth. And how does this comport with Jesus saying “we speak of what we know”?

So I humbly submit that all the great orthodox Protestant theologians of our time that I can find who made commentary on this passage may not be entirely correct, or may need significant refinement, in their apparent agreement on this passage. As it is, perhaps my hermeneutical approach is in error. It’s a good thing this isn’t a terrifically important theological matter among us Protestants.

As such, I submit my contemplations to all of my fellow Protestants for your consideration. If you have a good argument that refutes my thinking, please make it.

Discipleship 2007 - Session 1

I had the opportunity to lead three sessions of discipleship in Venezuela this year. In the first session, I covered the Ordinances. For those of you who are not Baptists, these are often referred to elsewhere as sacraments. Roman Catholics believe in several sacraments, but Protestants typically only recognize two: Baptism and Communion. The reason that Baptists call these "ordinances" rather than "sacraments" is to make a distinction in the theology. The use of the word "sacrament" is rooted in the belief that participants in the activity somehow receive some sort of special grace from the activity. For example, there are those who believe that baptism actually saves the one being baptized. Others believe that the grace received through baptism is the reception of the new covenant. Baptists do not believe that God imparts anything special to us other than to provide an outward sign of an inward truth. Our desire as Christians should be to be obedient to that which Christ has ordained.

As such, I sought to teach only that which is explicit in the Bible and allow their questions to teach me what issues they need addressed. In this way I might go without sullying their learning by introducing muddled debates over questionable theology that they have no knowledge of. In accordance with this and as a Baptist teaching Baptists, I maintained only a basic hermeneutic recognized by Baptists and refined it only when they had questions or specific concerns. The reason for this was to build a solid hermeneutical foundation that can be refined.

The following constitutes the notes I passed out and from which I taught:

The Ordinances

Baptism

Greek word means “dip” or “immerse”. Often it was used in reference to cleaning something. There are those who dispute this meaning saying that the ancient usage of the word had a much broader meaning. This is true. There are cases where it is used figuratively for the baptism of the Holy Spirit or for ceremonial cleaning (Hebrew 9:10). However, this passage draws a distinction between ceremonial washing and Christian baptism. Furthermore, when the act of water baptism is described in the Bible, it is described in terms of full immersion (Matthew 3:16) and the meaning of Christian baptism with respect to the death burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12) makes no sense outside of full immersion.

Institution: Matthew 28:19-20
Was administered by John the Baptist: Matthew 3:5-12; John 3:23
Was sanctioned by Christ through His baptism: Matthew 3:13-15; Luke 3:21
Christ baptized: John 3:22; 4:1-2

Historical Foundation for Baptism

Ceremonial washing Exodus 30:17-21

In the Old Testament, the Jews practiced a number of ceremonial washings and cleansings. A Gentile convert to Judaism had to undergo a baptism to complete his conversion. If a Gentile wanted to be identified with the Jews (become a proselyte), he had to undergo a three-part process: (These procedures are still mostly in effect today)

1. Circumcision (Today, if already circumcised, a male must offer a drop of blood as symbolic circumcision)
2. immersion, baptism (Still mandatory today, called a mikveh, must be witnessed by three)
3. Corban – offer the blood sacrifice of animals to remind the Gentile that their forgiveness required the death of a substitute (Today, a convert can give money or gifts to the poor as an offering. An additional step is the choosing of a Hebrew name.)

By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: ‘No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof’ (Exodus 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: ‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes’ (Exodus 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: ‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings’ (Exodus 24:5)...When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant...He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice...And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice...The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born.

To this day, Gentiles who would embrace Judaism must undergo baptism in a mikveh ritual. The purpose of this ceremonial immersion is to portray spiritual cleansing, as Maimonides concluded in his codification of the laws of mikveh: “...uncleanness is not mud or filth which water can remove, but it is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent on the intention of the heart.

What the Bible teaches us about Baptism

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Matthew 28:19
Inward truth:

Regeneration: Romans 6:3-11
Confession of sins necessary: Matthew 3:6
Marked by repentance of sins: Acts 2:38
Faith is necessary: Acts 8:37-38; 18:8
Remission of sins: Acts 2:38; 22:16

Water is the outward and visible sign: Acts 8:36; 10:47
It is the outward sign of an inward truth

Represents the influence of the Holy Spirit: Matthew 3:11
True baptism results in the gift of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:38
Fruit of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-26
Unity of the spirit: Ephesians 4:2-6

It is to be done once in the life of the believer. (Hebrew 6:2,6)

The Lord’s Supper

Institution: Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25

The historical foundation for the Lord’s Supper

Feast of Unleavened Bread: Matthew 26:17-29; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20
From the Law of Moses: Exodus 23:15
Passover before the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt: Exodus 12

What the Bible teaches about the Lord’s Supper

It is called “The Lord’s Supper” (I Corinthians 11:20)
It is called “Communion” (I Corinthians 10:16)
It commemorates the death of Christ (I Corinthians 11:26)
It must not be observed unworthily (I Corinthians 11:27-32)
It may be done throughout the life of the believer until Christ returns. I Corinthians11:26

Logical discord, Spiritual Harmony

This rather long post ties together a few topics under one conceptual umbrella. I had considered breaking it up, but the application would be lost because topics subsequent to the underlying concept would hardly stand alone. Therefore, I came up with a composite title that simply doesn’t fit in the title fields most blog hosts provide. Let me apologize at this point for such a long post. It is hardly exhaustive and provides only a few areas where the central concept is applied. I have made reference to the scriptures and haven’t as of this writing provided book, chapter and verse references. I may add some in the near future. On to the body of the post…

Logical Discord, Spiritual Harmony, Reformation Theology, Confession and Baptistic Baptism

There is a concept on which I’ve posted before in my original blog at blogspot. I have referenced it in a few posts since, but I want to refine and expound on it here. When I talk about the bivalence of temporal reason and the univalence of the eternal God, these are very specific terms that I’m about to explain to you. I’ve never precisely named this concept. I’ll call it “Logical Discord”.

Consider who God is. We observe a natural order of cause and effect. If something happens, something else happening caused it. Since this something else is a happening, something else happening caused it. It is inconceivable that this chain of causes and effects goes back infinitely. The scientist may seek to trace the cause of everything known back to the big bang and then plead ignorance as to what caused the big bang. Without knowing for sure the precise chain of causes and effects, the concept that an uncaused cause must exist. Since this cause is uncaused, it is indicative of something substantial that is foundational to the world we know, but doesn’t carry the same rules. This something we’ll call “Eternity”. We’ll call the uncaused cause the “First Cause”. Because the First Cause is substantial and foundational, the First Cause isn’t confined by Eternity, but rather defines it. We’ll give another name to the First Cause: “God”. (There is a way to derive qualities or attributes of God, but this isn’t pertinent to this discussion.) This is called the cosmological “proof” of God. It is not a proof of the existence of God, it is a proof in the sense that is a temporal definition of God.

Since God is substantial, He is the source of existence and it is invalid to ask whether or not He exists. Given the flow of thought through history, the terminology I’m using is with respect to, and contrary to, the broad philosophy of existentialism. In general, existentialism holds that existence is foundational to substance. Here, I’ve derived a quick apologetic for the notion that substance is foundational to existence. If I didn’t think that this post wasn’t going to be long enough already, I’d go into some theoretical physics and demonstrate the continuity of this foundation inherent in the very physical structure of the temporal cosmos. But this would be an unnecessary digression.

I’ve mentioned Eternity. Here’s a shocker for most people: Eternal does not mean “infinite time”. Time is “Temporal”. Eternity is timeless. If the Eternal God is foundational to Temporal Creation, then infinite time is a temporal manifestation of eternity. Ahh, but I’m jumping ahead.

Temporality is, by nature, “Bivalent”. Bivalence is the quality of having two values. In logic, these two values are “true” and “false”. Existence, the temporal quality of being, is not absolute. It has boundaries. If I look at myself, I can see a fairly distinct edge to my body that demarcates where my existence ceases. If I were truly absolute, my existence would continue infinitely in all directions, including through time. This is impossible since existence is temporal. And eternity is the cosmological center of absolute. There is a questionable disunity to my existence in that I am not the same person I was years ago. I have eaten and breathed. I have cast waste off from myself. The molecules that comprise my existence have changed themselves constantly since my birth. Nevertheless, there is continuity to my existence that I owe to God. Therefore, while my body is physically different, there is a pattern that has followed. I look about the same. I have scars where I had injuries although the molecules are different. I have memories and cognitive abilities that demonstrate this continuity. I have a beginning that was caused by my parents. The beginning of my existence was construed from the existence of genetic material and cellular matter from each of my parents. Did that separate genetic material and cellular matter cease to exist? No. It became me. What was it before it became me? It was my mom and dad. Therefore, my continuity is of my parents and their continuity is of their parents. This is traced back to a single set of parents. If we accept the veracity of the Bible, which I do, those parents are Adam and Eve. This continuity is a manifestation of the Absolute.

But the fact that we have bounded existence is bivalent. Inside the boundaries, existence is true. Outside the boundaries, existence is false. Since God is eternal and absolute, there is no boundary to His substance for there to be a “true” or “false”. Therefore, God is single-valued or “Univalent”. (Univalence is most often used as a descriptor in chemistry. However, its usage is valid outside of chemistry.) The problem with univalence is that it is impossible for us to grasp. It would seem simple since it only has one value. Consider this: if everything in the world were precisely the same hue of green, we would have no concept of color in general or green in particular. As temporal creatures we require the contrast of false to comprehend the true. There would be nothing that was not green against which to compare the green.

Given the discourse to this point: while creation is temporal, God’s creating is eternal. Since God is substantially outside of time there is no “time” for God when creation didn’t exist. Consequently, there is no “time” for God where our future doesn’t already exist. The six days of creation were created as a demonstration for us.

This takes an interesting turn when we consider that God, being eternal, created something that was not. Effectively, God creates that which is not He. This is the incomprehensible (to us) bifurcation that establishes the bivalent pattern of existence in the temporal cosmos. Consider that the incarnation of God in the person of the Son as the man, Jesus the Christ, took the form of a temporal creature. His death is after the form of God creating that which is not God and His resurrection is after the form of the eternal relationship between God and His creation. After all, does God give us temporal life? Well, yes. However, God also gives us eternal life. In a fallen world, is it better to pursue a good temporal life at the expense of eternal life or to acknowledge Christ’s gift of eternal life at the expense of our temporal life.

Lest you balk, consider this statement made by me to you: If I’m going too quickly for you, just stop me. Well, you can’t stop me, because I’m already finished. The end of the article is written. You just haven’t gotten to it yet. And at what would you balk? You may be thinking, “Jim, you’re a hyper-Calvinist! That’s heretical!” Let not your heart be troubled. A discussion of Calvinism from this quasi-philosophical framework is the next section of discourse.

But first I need to mention a few more things by way of approach. First, while we have Logical Discord between temporality and eternity, there is Spiritual Harmony in the manifestations of the Eternal in the Temporal. With regard to the human psyche, the seat of the will, the manifestation of the Eternal is evidenced in our motivations, our inclinations. I’ve written before that the human psyche is comprised of competing inclinations. These inclinations are fed from various sources such as sociological context and stimulation; diet, past experience, etc. The strongest inclinations are the ones that inform our behavior. Inasmuch as we identify with one inclination or another seems to be an inclination in and of itself. However, this sort of inclination normalizes the inclinations with which it identifies thus strengthening them. Paul seems to convey this concept in his letter to the Romans when he denigrates himself for not doing what he wants to do and doing what he doesn’t want to do.

For humans, one other factor remains. This is our receptiveness to the spiritual. This is to say that we can gain information from… what? What is the spiritual? If God is absolute and eternal, then does the absolute and eternal constitute the whole of the spiritual? Are angels and demons part of the eternal or part of the temporal? Is the physical world we are familiar with the only temporal cosmos? Is the spiritual world some relatively imperceptible integrated aspect of the natural order? Is this part of what “the heavens” are? The fact is that we don’t know exactly, and this exercise is mere speculation. We argue from ignorance. All that is reasonable to conclude is that God is spirit and the spiritual is also the medium by which the Absolute is manifest in the patterns of the Temporal. This information is available to us through God’s revelation in the scriptures. What is also available to us is that the fruit of the spirit speaks to our motivations and only our behaviors indirectly. Where we temporally view and judge behavior, God judges our motivations. We can do the right things for the wrong reasons. We can do the wrong things for the right reasons. What is true from the previous paragraph is that we have a combination of right reasons and wrong reasons and an overarching inclination (our identification) toward one set of reasons or another according to what we know and assent as true.

This is the harmonization of the spiritual where the logic is discordant.

Consider the debate between Reformed theology and autonomous free will. There are three positions in this debate, although too often only two are characterized. There is the position, as I have mentioned, of autonomous free will. This position doesn’t necessarily deny the sovereignty of God. However, there is no general consensus on how precisely God’s autonomy squares with our autonomy. The second position is authentic Reformed theology characterized typically by John Calvin’s five points. This position accepts that God is absolutely sovereign while maintaining that free will is compatible with God’s sovereignty. This is why a good descriptive reference to this position is to call it “compatibilism.” True Reformed theologians, while assenting to free will, do not, however, believe this free will to be “autonomous.” That is, there is nothing that informs our decisions that God has not created realizing the impact that such would have on our decisions. Because the logic becomes discordant at this point, the Reformed position is often mischaracterized as a third position. This third position is often called “Hyper Calvinism” or “Fatalism”. This position denies that humans have any free will at all.

The spiritual harmonization of compatibilism lies in the motivations of human beings. If our motivation is to exert our free will over and against the will of God, then God acquiesces inasmuch as He leaves us to our own devices. Since we are temporal, we essentially live the balance of our temporal lives yet on the foundation of the Eternal. While the existence of such a one may perish, his spiritual substance remains paradoxically separate from the Eternal. Since eternal life comes from God, this substance is eternally (timelessly) dead.

However, if our motivation is to relinquish our right to will freely, then we rightly attribute this motivation to God. We acknowledge from this that our will is free from sin, although we yet struggle with sin from within throughout the temporal process of sanctification, and this through internal confession (not to deny the necessity of external confession). Our motivation is to assent to God’s worthiness of His sovereign control over our lives (worship). We therefore become free agents to bear His will. Once again, the logic is discordant because we cannot approach a univalent God with a bivalent understanding, but the spirit is in harmony because we have negated the paradoxical effects of a fallen world by submitting our will to God.

I offer myself humbly as an example through confession. If you have skipped to this point without reading the above, what I am about to say will not be fruitful. For it is in confession that spiritual harmonization is realized through submission. This is not a confession of a behavioral sin. This is a confession of a spiritual struggle – a temptation. Some of you who have read my writings for some time may recognize a certain lack of focus or a meandering thought. My confession is that I have been distracted. I won’t get specific as to what has been distracting me, but suffice it to say that it is a spiritual battle. Inasmuch as I must rely on God for strength in the battle, I have been successful in remaining faithful. The stakes are very high and God is faithful in His providence. There are very few with whom I have trusted even this scant information. There is only one to whom I have disclosed the particulars of the battle. There is none aside from myself who understand the full import of the battle.

One solution to the culmination of the battle is that I find a way to meet certain sociological needs. I have many acquaintances, some of which are among my fellow bloggers. It has come to my realization, however, that I have no close friends. I work in virtual solitude, eat alone, read alone, write alone and often rehearse alone. When I am privileged to converse with another, I typically submit to conversation that revolves around their interests. (Kim at Xanga has been a recent exception to this. I am acquainted with a good friend of hers who lives in my area and Kim, during her solitary work life, has been good company via the Internet lately. Thanks for hanging out with me, Kim. I very much enjoy your company.) To date, God has not provided a close friend. This is one I’ll connotatively define as someone who knows where you hide the key to your back door, and knows he (or she) is welcome to use it – and this both figuratively as well as literally. However, God is with me Himself. His presence and my consequent submission to Him have strengthened my faith if by fire. Therein is His provision and spiritual harmony in the midst of logical discord.

To restate, internal confession negates the paradoxical effects of a fallen world through submission. This happens certainly to the believer who ascribes such a state of affairs to the work of God through His Holy Spirit. The justification of such a one is temporally eventful and eternally absolute (timeless). However, the fact that God’s Spirit works in the heart of the believer to achieve a submission of will is indicative of something else we learn from God’s revelation in holy scripture. This is that the believer is “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit.

It can be argued, yet seldom is, that paedobaptism (infant baptism) is practiced because of the eternal state of the believer over and against the mere act of manifesting this faith. However, since the faith is not manifest in this infant, it is disingenuous to assume that it will be. One must develop some theology that assumes either universalism or the insecurity of the believer, neither of which is Biblical.

Instead, it is prudent to pray for and profess the faith to those who have not confessed and manifested submission, withholding baptism until such a time as they do so and consent in obedience to the rite of baptism ordained by Christ as the method for demonstrating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Where “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “immersion”, the reality of the spiritual harmony is that the individual is immersed in the work of the Holy Spirit and His teaching through the discipleship offered through the Body of Christ. This is evident in the great commission. Baptism itself, being representative also of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, is therefore doubly a representation of the logical discord of God’s bivalent creation and the spiritual harmony of His univalent provision of eternal life.