A book I highly recommend (though I do not endore his Federal Vision theology) is Douglas Wilson's To a Thousand Generations. I find the case he makes for ochobaptism (or household baptism) to be very convincing. Concerning his argumentation, Douglas Wilson makes the bold claim: "In arguing for biblical infant baptism, it is not sufficient for us to say that infant baptism is merely consistent with the Scriptures, or that a biblical case can be made for it. In order for us to be satisfied that we are being biblical Christians, we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism." I believe that if we begin by understanding that children are members of the New Covenant and that the New Covenant is equated with the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3, the case for administering the sign of the New Covenant to all its members becomes undeniable. But do the Scriptures teach that children will be included in the New Covenant? To avoid this fact, one has to discount virtually all the prophecies concerning the New Covenant in the OT. Here are a few:
24 My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. -Ezekiel 37:24-26 (ESV; emphasis mine)
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.-Malachi 4:5-6 (ESV; emphasis mine)
21 And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore."-Isaiah 59:21 (ESV; emphasis mine)
36 Now therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, ‘It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’: 37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.-Jeremiah 32:36-41 (ESV; emphasis mine)
Consider the weight of these texts and how all the other covenants in Scripture (the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) all included Scripture. The grammatico/historical approach (which is a characteristic of the Reformed hermeneutic) requires us to try and interpret these passages how the original audience would have understood them. Is there any doubt that to a Jewish audience who heard the prophecies concerning a coming covenant (one that is promised to be better as well) they would have assumed their children were included as well? Of course they would, and especially since all the covenants of the patriarchs included children. These prophecies and their emphasis on generational blessing and promise would have only echoed their understanding that God is Lord of the Covenant and that children are included. The goal of the New Covenant is not to abrogate the covenantal parent/child relationship but to fulfill it. This is particularly obvious in the Malachi 4:5-6 passage.
Reformed Baptists often want to negate the continuity between the two covenants by emphasizing the "newness" of the New Covenant and going to Hebrews 8. I myself found this a compelling case at one time; however, the point of the Hebrews 8 passage is that the New Covenant is different because it can actually guarantee faithfulness of the members' descendants. The Old Covenant could not do that because the law was not written on the heart but on tablets of stone. Why would we make the New Covenant weaker than the Old by restricting the inclusion of children? The fact is, with the weight of the OT prophecy concerning the New Covenant, there is no Biblical grounds to do so. I firmly believe that Baptists practice credobaptism because they preach a regenerate membership. The only problem is nominalization is just as rampant amongst Baptist circles (if not more so) as it is amongst Presbyterian ones. There will always be those who are in the visible church who are not truly part of the invisible. That is why the practice of church discipline and excommunication should exist.
My main problem with credobaptism is that it is not a theological system that is practically lived out, at least not in Reformed Baptist camps (and thankfully so). However, in many other Baptist churches that have a low view of doctrine and teaching, there is a tendency to have a low view of childrearing. After all, why would you raise your child in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4) when they are not included in the covenant promises? For that matter, why even read any of Ephesians 6 that has to do with children since, after all, children are excluded from the promises of the New Covenant? Why catechize? Why say blessings with your children at bedtime? Why read them Scripture? They are no different than the children of nonbelievers. Fortunately, while devoted Christians may fall on either side of this issue in the theoretical, all devoted Christians raise their children as if they were members of the covenant. Soli deo gloria!
10 comments:
You padeobaptist have always had fundamental misunderstanding of the new covenant. Read Paul Jewett's "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace".
You will not allow children to partake of the Lord's Supper, because it is active.
Baptism in the New Testament has always been active- it is an act of believing repentance.
That Eph. text gives commands to parents and children.
THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN BUILD A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY FOR INFANT BAPTISM ON THAT TEXT! Or any NT text. It is not there. Circumcison was given a national sign to believing and unbelieving.
Baptism has alwasy been for believers. No one is born in to the new covenant except by the Spirit. That's what makes it a better covenant.
The new covenant community is not mixed with unbelievers like the old covenant. Sure there are wheat among the tares, but we don't go sowing them in intentionally.
The whole right to a covenant sign was part of Peter's relization in Acts 10. Those of Corneilus household were characterized as The whole household issue including infants is not in view because they are not described as hearing the word, receiving the Spirit, speaking in tongues, or repenting. BABIES DON'T DO THAT!
The church is different than Israel. Christ is building his church and the Spirit is within them. The local church should only give the rite to those who believe, repent and confess Christ.
There has alway been the people of God, but the covenants of God's operation have changed. Moses and the Prophets looked to that day.
First off, you said "There is no way you can build a Biblical Theology for infant baptism on that text" in reference to my mentioning of Paul's address to parents and children in Ephesians. You are missing the point entirely. I am not attempting to build a Biblical theology for infant baptism off that text. I was merely pointing out the status of children in the New Covenant and that it is noteworthy to see that Paul considered them as members of the New Testament church. I build my Biblical theology for infant baptism (or covenant baptism as I prefer to say) off of the entire testimony of Holy Scripture. Hence, tota scriptura.
Secondly, you said, "The whole right to a covenant sign was part of Peter's relization in Acts 10. Those of Corneilus household were characterized as The whole household issue including infants is not in view because they are not described as hearing the word, receiving the Spirit, speaking in tongues, or repenting. BABIES DON'T DO THAT!" Really? You are claiming that Scripture has no record believing infants?
"Whoever causes one of these little ones (Grk. brephos, infants) who believe in me to sin, [1] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." -Mark 9:42
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts." -Psalm 22:9
Oh my, I sure hope that the Psalmist wasn't still breast feeding when he reached some sort of mythical-extrabiblical-I-have-to-add-concepts-into-Scripture-to-fit-my-theology age of accountability! For most Baptists, isn't that like six years old? ((shivers))
If we don't have a category for a believing infant are we basing that on what sociologists and psychologists say or upon the categories given by Scripture? If the former, isn't this undermining the sufficiency of Scripture?
And lastly, concerning Israel being different than the church, I only need to reference you to Romans 9, which, as long as it is in the Bible, makes dispensationalism downright heretical.
Grace and Peace,
Trevor
Psa 22 is out of the argument- because it is seen as messianic.
"my God why have you for saken..."
If you don't see that you need read Sailhamer or someone who actually knows the Psalter.
You are telling me that is a proof text for infant belief?
No true exegete will accept this text for scripture giving explicit truth for the doctrine of infant belief. -Too much of a stretch Trev.
Listen; I think you make an interesting point w/the Eph 6 text. However, is it plausible that is written to children of believers?
Is it possible that we don't have a clear word on children being adopted into the family of God outside of salvation in Christ?
Why can't this be instruction as the will of God for children concerning their parents?
There is a lot of assumption there for me to make that jump.
What other liberties are you willing to take?
You used Mark, are you kidding me?
You use the text below to build on just like "free will" Baptists do to say that John 3:16 talks about the free will of man.
John 3:16 has nothing to do with the will of man and everything to do with God and the new birth by the Holy Spirit.
What is the big point of Mark 9?
You can't convince me on that text that infants believe.
Not all of Martin Luther's theology is right Trevor.
Nice stretch-
You gave me your cute little word study in there. I need to see if that is the proper understanding of the word and use before I go any further. Right now I don't know how skilled you are in lexical studies.
The bottom line is you can't produce an explicit doctrine of infant belief like you can on God's election, the person of Christ, etc.
If you knew anything about schools of thought concerning different theologies, you would not lump all Baptist in the dispensational category. That is a little insulting.
I don't agree with what Baptists do as a whole. I am grieved as much as you are.
I like guys like Mark Dever who actually have a thoughtful approach to baptism.
I don't think we should baptize any child.
However, I don't agree with inviting unbelievers into a community that is regenerated.
New Covenant- New Community.
The Church is display of God's glory. A people who confess, repent, believe and are baptized into Christ.
There is no birth right for the new covenant community. Peter realized, that God is a respecter of no persons.
Households do not necessarily mean infants. There is not enough clarity in the narrative to hang all of that on. You are asking for a big leap of me?
Are you saying infants are saved ex opre operato at baptism?
Sounds like it with this whole "infant belief" stuff you are so desperately trying to proof text.
You sounded really noble with the whole bit of "I build on tota scriptura." Yes, and so do we, except we don't read new covenant ideas into the old covenant, and we don't read old covenant ideas into the new covenant.
Like I said, read Paul Jewetts book and write a critique on.
What was this garbage you said,
"Oh my, I sure hope that the Psalmist wasn't still breast feeding when he reached some sort of mythical-extrabiblical-I-have-to-add-concepts-into-Scripture-to-fit-my-theology age of accountability! "?
Have you ever studied the shape of the Psalter? If you had you would not ask a silly question like this. No, you would sense that this poetic work in midst of Psa 23,and 24 and realize you missed the entire flow.
Wow, you really want to defend this stuff, but you ignorantly and poorly proof text.
Romans 9 does not teach that Israel would ultimately receive God's redemptive blessings.
We have to be careful not to equivocate "redemption" in the OT always with the NT. In the OT context, it can simply mean "redemption" out of Egypt, without the NT sense of redemption from sin and ultimate slavific blessings.
Is all of Israel in heaven because they were "redeemed"? Of course not, you have to qualify the words.
Be careful there young man. There is typological language used and type does not always mean anti-type.
Anonymous,
Looks like my friend Trevor has touched a nerve. As a baptist going to a Presby church I appreciate your arguments - i need all the amo I can get for guys like Trevor!
Trevor's a good guy, a little misguided on the Baptism issue but I love him and his wife any way.
Trevor I'd have to say I'm looking forward to this little debate between you and Anonymous, can I keep score or am I too biased?
Soli Deo Gloria!
Tim
Again, I believe you are still missing the point. My belief in covenant baptism is based upon three pillars: 1) the family solidarity principle in the OT that is continued in the NT, 2) the definition and meaning of baptism, and 3) baptism signifies the same spiritual reality as circumcision.
I have never claimed that infants are saved by baptism "ex opere operato" or by the sheer mechanical working of the waters of baptism. This is a Roman, apostate error. I do, however, advocate a baptismal realism. That is, there is a close relationship between the sign and the thing signified. So much so, that I do not believe Paul would have had a category for an unbaptized Christian. Baptism, like the preaching of the Word, is a declaration of the gospel, though nonverbal (unlike the preaching of the Word). It is a means by which the recipient may be saved albeit not apart from faith. If you disagree with speaking in the language of baptism saving anyone, you need to consult 1 Peter 3:21.
I do not believe I am making the error of Arminians or Non-Calvinists (a more accurate term for those who do not have a consistent theological system) when they read some inherent ability in man to come to Christ in John 3:16. The "whosoever" phrase is an English transliteration that is meant to encompass all the believing ones and is not present in the original Greek. Mark 9:42 however simply states, "Whoever causes one of these little ones WHO BELIEVE IN ME TO SIN." There is no reading into that. The text simply states that there are little ones (Grk. infants) who believe in Christ.
As for dismissing Ps. 22:9 on the grounds that it is messianic, this is just absurd. All messianic prophecy has double fulfillment. This means that there is an immediate fulfillment to the original audience and a future fulfillment in the Messiah. Take Hosea 11 for example. Matthew says that Jesus was taken to Egypt as a child so that what was spoken by the prophet Hosea might be fulfilled ("Out of Egypt I have called my Son", v.1). If you read Hosea 11 in context however, you will see that Hosea is talking about Israel, which the prophets continuously refer to as God's son. The rest of Hosea 11 talks about Israel sacrificing to idols, which hopefully you do not think is fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, to write off an entire psalm as messianic with no immediate fulfillment is unthinkable.
You said you liked Mark Dever. I think I know who you are now. Maybe it's time to stop posting as "Anonymous" or should I say..."Tim..." ;-)
I agree about the double fulfilment bit. However, is not the Psalter in poetic praise of God? Does this justify infant belief? I'm sorry- it is not enough.
Still- you are tracing the flow fo those passages like the Psalter and they still do not give explicit teaching on this doctrine.
I checked your Greek word. You were shamefully wrong. It is the word "mikros" like micro. It simply means little one.
It does not remotely insinuate "infant". HUGE MISTAKE. He speaking about children who certainly can embrace Christ. I can't remember a time in my life I did not believe.
Please admit your error.
Those 2 passages do not build any explicit doctrine.
The only way to prove infant baptism is to read it into the text and padeobaptist are great at that excercise.
Trevor,
All I am saying is this.
Refored padeobaptist are great and we praise God for them. However, they can be more than most certainly wrong about this.
Don't just swallow this teaching, - dig it out make it prove it self outside some of these arguments. (which are some of the better ones i have heard, yet still there not devestatingly convincing.)
Anonymous-
Check out my most recent post. Let's continue the discussion there if you would like.
You're right about Mark 9:42. That was my mistake. However, I consulted a lexicon and these passages indisputably use the term 'brephos':
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: -Luke 1:41
This is John the Baptist who had the Holy Ghost while in the womb. Thus, we have an example of an individual outside Jesus (since you claim Psalm 22 to ONLY refer to Jesus) who believed from infancy. I suppose you can do one of two things with this. 1) You could say John was some kind of special exception. However, we still have record in Scripture of a believing infant. OR 2) You can try and build some strange doctrine of John the Baptist having the Holy Spirit but not believing...I would suggest you not go this route.
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” -Luke 18:15-17
In this passage, Jesus blesses little children (Grk. brephos) and says "to such belongs the kingdom of God" (v.17). Now you can talk all you want about how this has no record of baptism but you would be missing the point. The point is not that Jesus baptizes these infants but that he blesses them and says they belong in the visible community of God's grace! Children (and yes I mean infants as well) are included in the covenant.
As far as Mark 9:42 is concerned, it really doesn't change the point much that the word is "little ones" and not "infants." The Bible makes no such distinction between infants and other children like Baptists do. In fact, that is a modern invention that came about with the rise of individualism and this mytical age-of-accountability concept. Scripture only knows two distinctions: child and adult.
Just some thoughts...
1. In my opinion, RB misunderstand the new covenant because they fail to realize that there is an "already--not yet" pattern of realization. In other words, the new covenant is inaugurated at Pentecost, but it is not consummated until the Second Coming of Christ. Moreover, practically speaking, baptist churches do not have 100% regenerate membership. If you say that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant and has no physical administration, then what do you make of all the warning passages in Hebrews, which speak about the judgment of God against those who violate the new covenant of grace, even as covenant members in the past violated the old covenant of law?
2. If baptism is active, then why is the verb (baptizo) always in the passive voice. Believers are never said to baptize themselves or even submit to baptism. Instead, they were baptized. Passive, not active. Note well: “repent (active voice) and be baptized (passive voice)…” (Acts 2:38).
3. From the RB perspective, the new covenant is better because it only contains believers… But in their opinion, it no longer includes children. So… how is this better? How is this a better covenant? Moreover, how is this not spiritual gerrymandering on God’s part? He simply redefines the covenant to include only believers and says, “Ta da! The new covenant. Now they all know the Lord!” Sorry bud, but that is ridiculous. If that was the way it was, then God could have established the new covenant at any point in redemptive history b/c there was always a remnant of believers that he could have drawn a line around and said, “These are the new covenant.” No, the new covenant is better b/c it provides what the old covenant demanded. The old covenant demanded perfect obedience on tablets of stone, but the new covenant provides perfect obedience in the life of Christ and writes that obedience on the hearts of believers (2 Cor 3-4). But, again, this has an ongoing fulfillment. This has only begun to happen among us (Heb 8).
4. “The church is different than Israel…” Thank you for proving a point that I have made for a long time. Credobaptism assumes a dispensational understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant (ie a national, not spiritual, covenant). Read Galatians 3 and see if you change your mind.
Post a Comment