New Book on Baptism

I have been looking forward to the publication of this volume for quite some time, now. The main reason, of course, is that John graciously asked me to be one of his editors on the project. This was a very satisfying project for me, personally, as it enabled me to get a much better grasp on the historical theology of baptism, as well as the redemptive-historical meaning of baptism. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever read a book that was better at helping me understand what baptism means than this volume. I recommend it highly as the best book on the actual meaning of the sacrament of baptism. Take it and read it. You won’t regret it.



  1. Reed Here said,

    October 13, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Lane: bought just now. Thanks!

  2. October 13, 2010 at 4:52 pm


    It is a really good treatment of the subject. I only wish Fesko had dealt with the theological significance of circumcision as bit more, since we believe that baptism is the covenant sign that replaces it. That being said, this is a magnum opus for sure!

  3. greenbaggins said,

    October 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    He has about 16 pages on circumcision and the connection of that to baptism. Was there something missing in that?

  4. David Gadbois said,

    October 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Lane, I’ve always wondered what exactly it means to “edit” a book series. What does that entail?

  5. greenbaggins said,

    October 14, 2010 at 10:15 am

    It means a lot of things: proofing for spelling, punctuation, grammar, word-choice, etc.; fact-checking and source-checking; checking the argument; examining the flow of the work, always comparing the forest to the trees; checking for clarity, and probably some other things I’m forgetting. It is exceedingly labor intensive.

  6. Stephen Welch said,

    October 15, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Thanks for this recommendation, Lane. I am anxious to purchase a copy. I particularly like the fact that he looks at the subject from a historical perspective but ties it to the covenant. This is very important.

  7. Ron Marlin said,

    October 19, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    And yet, there is not a word or clear instance of infant baptism in all the Bible. Amazing!

  8. Bruce said,

    November 11, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Ask, and you shall receive, Ron.
    1Cor.10:2 “ALL were baptized.”

    Go ahead, tell me it wasn’t “really” a baptism.
    Reply: Please re-read the assigned text.

  9. John Ronning said,

    November 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    baptism is nowhere said to be the sign of the new covenant – the communion cup is the sign of the new covenant, and covenants have only one sign (destroys the entire paedo-baptist argument unless you argue for paedo-communion. baptism is an initiation rite, not the covenant sign, thus only partially analogous to circumcision. the covenant sign of communion is a regular celebration, just as the sabbath was the sign of the mosaic covenant (and infants don’t observe that sign – they have trouble with the “six days you shall labor” part of it).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: