What is Baptism?

When we consider the sacred rite of baptism, it is necessary to understand both its significance and its application. First, the significance of baptism.

As a result of the emergence of a man-centered view of redemption, there has been a corresponding rise in a man-centered view of the sacrament of baptism. This should really come as no surprise since baptism is the initiatory rite of being ushered into the visible people of God. If the church's view of redemption is man-centered, then baptism which points to redemption will be seen in a man-centered way. In other words, baptism is seen in many evangelical circles as pointing to the individual's personal faith and repentance. This is exactly the opposite of what baptism, or any other covenant sign in Scripture, is meant to do. Signs are markers which serve to remind (however anthropromorphic it may sound) the suzerain God of his objective promise. It is not a sign of some inward change. This was the case in every covenant in the OT and continues to be so with baptism. Let us look at some examples:

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 “It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 “When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” -Genesis 9:8-17

Notice, the purpose of the sign of the covenant is so that God "will remember" his covenant (v.15. The sign of the covenant (i.e. the rainbow) is not pointing to some subjective, inward disposition within Noah. It is not a sign of Noah's personal faith in the promise of the covenant. It is a sign to remind God of God's promise. To put another way, it is outward and objective rather than inward and subjective. Here is another one:

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” -Genesis 17:9-14

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant is the bloody rite of circumcision. Was circumcision a sign of the inward, subjective disposition of the recipient? Verses 12-13 clearly demonstrate it was not, because every male in Israel was circumcised even those who would later demonstrate unbelief. What exactly does circumcision then signify? Paul, who also calls the Abrahamic covenant the gospel in Galatians 3:8, says this regarding what circumcision signifies:

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. -Colossians 2:11-12

While many credobaptists may want to object and say that Paul does not say that baptism replaces circumcision in this text, that is not the point. The point is that what Paul does state is that both circumcision and baptism convey the same spiritual reality, that is, the objective work of Christ in dying and purging us of the sinfulness of the flesh. Circumcision is the bloody rite which looks forward to this event while baptism is the bloodless rite which looks back. Neither, however, are necessarily intended to signify something about the individual recipient.

In regards to the application of the sign of baptism, I will propose this. When we correctly understand the significance of baptism, then the application of baptism flows from it. What I mean by this is that a God-centered view of baptism's significance results in a corporate-oriented view of baptism's application. If the significance of baptism is really meant to point to the outward, objective work of God in Christ and as a reminder to God and His people of that work, then the administration of baptism is not dependent upon knowing the internal disposition of the recipients. To clarify, no one who supports covenant baptism would advocate baptizing someone who is demonstrating unbelief and hatred towards the gospel. Such an idea is monstrous! With the case of infants, we do not know if they possess saving faith or not. Fortunately, this is not the criterion upon which we must determine whether or not to baptize an individual. The criterion is based upon God's objective promise through the gospel to believing households! This enables us then to take Peter's promise seriously in Acts 2:39 that the promise of the New Covenant is to believers and their children. Soli deo gloria!

Children are included in the New Covenant

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!

Clarity on Covenant Theology

In the sphere of Reformed Theology, there are two types of covenant theology, not necessarily two contradictory types, but two types nonetheless. The first type is dogmatic covenant theology, and the second type is biblical covenant theology, which does not imply that it is any more biblical than dogmatic. Rather, biblical covenant theology means that it seeks to understand the unity of biblical revelation in terms of the historic biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) revealed in Scripture, not in terms of the theological constructions that are developed from Scripture, though such constructions may be just as biblical. As one might imagine, problems arise when the terminology of one type of covenant theology are confused with the other. Moreover, there are a variety of positions held by Reformed theologians in both types of covenant theology but especially with regards to dogmatic covenant theology. Thus, there needs to be some clarification, especially for the Christian who is a newcomer to Reformed covenantal theology, of the distinctions, the debates, and the positions within the various forms of covenant theology. Such clarification begins with the proper terminology.

First of all, in dogmatic covenant theology, there are two major covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In addition to this, most Reformed theologians add a covenant of redemption. Although generally comments can and should be made about each covenant, it is important to recognize that these general definitions will not hold true for every Reformed theologian, who engages in dogmatic and systematic covenant theology. In order to understand what an individual Reformed theologian means by "covenant of works," "covenant of grace," or "covenant of redemption," the reader must seek to understand how the specific theologian uses those phrases. For example, some Reformed theologians, like Jonathan Edwards, prefer to collapse the covenant of grace into the covenant of redemption, while others, like Charles Hodge, prefer to distinguish between the two covenants as separate covenants with separate promises, conditions, and so on. So then, with that being said, the reader could begin with the following definitions:

Covenant of Works: This is a covenant made by the triune God with Adam. It was a promise of life to Adam and his descendants upon condition of perfect obedience. As such, it is also called a covenant of life. When distinctions are blurred between dogmatic covenant theology and biblical covenant theology, it is called the Adamic covenant or the covenant of creation (cf. Hosea 6:7). However, it is usually best to reserve such terms for biblical covenant theology, as they have a slightly different nuance in such contexts. For example, the discussion of merit is treated differently in dogmatic covenant theology than in biblical covenant theology. Biblical covenant theologians have the tendency to deny that Adam would have merited life for himself and his posterity if he obeyed, but dogmatic covenant theologians certainly have a place for merit in their conception of the covenant of works on account of Romans 5:12-21. Of course, biblical covenant theologians resist the tendency of dogmatic theologians to read Romans 5:12-21 back into Genesis 1-2. So then, again, clarity is achieved by seeking to understand what an individual theologian means by his terminology. Most importantly, the reader should always avoid the inclination to assume that a theologians means X by term or phrase Y, when he may in fact mean Z.

Covenant of Grace: Broadly speaking, and remaining parallel with the covenant of works, the covenant of grace is made by the Father with his Son Jesus Christ and his descendants. In this covenant, the triune God promises life to those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. More specifically, however, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the covenant of grace, which is a covenant between the triune God and his elect, and the covenant of redemption, which is an intertrinitarian covenant made between the Father and the Son (There is a debate about whether or not the Holy Spirit is included in the covenant of redemption. He is certainly included in the work of redemption, but Reformed theologians debate his inclusion in the covenant of redemption.).

The reason that this distinction is important is because in order for Christ to become our Second Adam, he had to fulfill the covenant of works. On account of our solidarity with Adam in the covenant of works, he sinned, and we die in him our covenant representative. The only way for us to be saved, then, is for God to (1) decide within himself to extend grace to those whom he chooses to save, and (2) send a new covenant representative who will fulfill the terms of the covenant of works for his people. So then, the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace must be maintained because our salvation was a covenant of works to Christ, our representative, while it remained a covenant of grace through Christ, our mediator. The Father covenanted with his Son to redeem his elect by sending his Son to fulfill the demands of the covenant of works so that he could offer to us the covenant of grace. In other words, the intertrinitarian covenant of redemption is the foundation of the covenant of grace.

Covenant of Redemption: Again, in terms of reading specific authors, the reader must seek to understand what the author intends. However, the covenant of redemption almost always refers to the eternal covenant made between the Father and the Son to save the elect from their sins. As such, it becomes the foundation of the covenant of grace, which is then administered in time under various dispensations, namely, law and gospel.

The Lord Jesus Christ- The Promised Seed, True Israel, and Last Adam- Part Two

In a real sense, Noah is the new Adam. He is commanded to spread the image of God throughout the earth which is recorded for us in v.18-19. However, though he is the representative of a new humanity that is saved in him and his ark, he is not the last Adam. His own sin demonstrates that he is not the ultimate fulfillment of the seed of the woman (cf. Gen. 9:21). Unable to keep his line in complete covenantal obedience, corruption soon emerges from Noah's own seed when Ham sees his father's nakedness and brings open shame to him (v. 22-23). As a result, Ham is cursed (v.25) and thus there is a re-emergence of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We, however, do have a covenant representative who is able to keep his seed in complete covenantal obedience: the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Is. 53:10-11). This is not because we have our covenantal obedience to plea but the covenantal obedience of the representative who was faithful in all ways.

In the last article, I alluded to the antithesis between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent which began at the fall and will continue until the return of the Lord in glory. It was my assertion that the theme of redemptive history was summed up in the protoevagelium: the seed of the woman will triumph over the seed of the serpent. Immediately from Genesis 3:15 and following, we witness the unfolding of the conflict between the two seeds. In Genesis 4, the first act of murder occurs when Cain, the seed of the serpent, takes the life of his brother Abel, the seed of the woman. As a result of his actions, Cain is banished east to the land of Nod where he eventually builds a city and names it Enoch after his seed. Just when it seems that the seed of the serpent is flourishing and has triumphed over the seed of the woman, God provides Eve another son: Seth. The birth of Seth closes out the Cain and Abel narrative and Moses then gives us a genealogy. The point of the genealogy and of all the genealogies is this: that God maintains his covenantal faithfulness through the seed of the woman.

The growth of the seed of the woman does not remain unchallenged however. In fact, by Genesis 6, the seed of the serpent outnumber the seed of the woman so much so that only Noah and his seed finds favor with God (Gen. 6:8). God's judgment of the seed of the serpent, the flood account, spans the next two chapters and by the outset of chapter 9 we have the institution of the Noahic Covenant. In the aftermath of the flood, God has appointed Noah as the new representative of humanity and re-issues the cultural mandate he gave Adam (cf. Gen. 9:7). In a real sense, Noah is the new Adam. He is commanded to spread the image of God throughout the earth which is recorded for us in v.18-19. However, though he is the representative of a new humanity that is saved in him and his ark, he is not the last Adam. His own sin demonstrates that he is not the ultimate fulfillment of the seed of the woman (cf. Gen. 9:21). Unable to keep his line in complete covenantal obedience, corruption soon emerges from Noah's own seed when Ham sees his father's nakedness and brings open shame to him (v. 22-23). As a result, Ham is cursed (v.25) and thus there is a re-emergence of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We, however, do have a covenant representative who is able to keep his seed in complete covenantal obedience: the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Is. 53:10-11). This is not because we have our covenantal obedience to plea but the covenantal obedience of the representative who was faithful in all ways.

We will continue to witness the unfolding of this drama of this between the two seeds until Genesis 15 and God's covenant with Abram. It is amidst the backdrop of the protoevangelium that we best understand significance of the Abrahamic Covenant, its fulfillment in the gospel and how Christ is the True Israel. We will examine this in greater detail next time.

According to the NT, What is the Status of the Children of Believers?

In reading the NT the careful exegete should make at least FIVE OBSERVATIONS pertaining to the children of believers.


First of all, according to the NT, the children of at least one believing parent are HOLY. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul is explaining the implications of the gospel for marriage. In verses 12-16, he considers the problem of marriages in which only one spouse is a believer. Under such circumstances, Paul encourages the believing spouse to remain married to the unbeliever, and in verse 14 he explains his rationale. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In other words, the faith of the believing spouse makes (notice the use of the verb in Greek) the unbelieving spouse holy, and because of the faith of at least one believing spouse, the children of that marriage are holy (notice the use of the noun in Greek). Paul’s expectation is that the unbelieving spouse will be influenced by the faith of the believing spouse, but Paul’s assertion is that the status of the children of at least one believing parent is presently holy. In order to accomplish this, Paul uses the noun “holy” of the child and the verb “make holy” of the parent or spouse. The verb speaks of the effect of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. However, the noun speaks of the effect of the faith of the parent on the status of the child. Furthermore, this is why it would be inappropriate to say that Paul says the same thing of the unbelieving spouse that he says of the child. In terms of the unbelieving spouse, Paul speaks of the influence of the faith of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse. In terms of the children, however, Paul speaks of their present status by virtue of the faith of one of their parents. They are holy. Of course, the fact that the children are “holy” does not necessarily mean that they are “born again” or “saved” or “justified” in any of the ways in which we ordinarily use those terms. It simply means that they are “set apart.” But in what sense are the children of at least one believing parent “set apart”? It would seem that the children of believers are “set apart” in the sense that they are set apart from the world and made members of God’s covenant people. Calvin’s citation of the second half of Romans 11:16 seems helpful in this regard: “…if the root is holy, so are the branches” (See Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:14). This is Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as well (See also, Ezra 9:2).


Second, the children of covenant members are RECIPIENTS OF THE SAME PROMISE that God makes to their parents, who are adult covenant members. After preaching a powerful sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded a response from his Jewish audience. He says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39). By remembering that Peter is addressing a Jewish audience (cf. 2:5, 37) and that the Jewish people are covenant members, it is incredibly significant that Peter offers the promise of the Spirit (cf. 1:4; 2:33) to them (the Jews) and their children. In other words, speaking from the perspective of the children, the children of covenant members are recipients of the same promise that their parents receive as members of the covenant people. If it is objected that this promise is only valid for Jews, not Gentiles, then the objector would do well to consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11-13. Paul says, “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:11-13). In other words, it would be appropriate to assert that in Acts 2:39 Peter could have said, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off (Gentiles), everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself [and their children],” but he does not say this because (A) he is addressing a Jewish audience and because (B) the truth that the promise made to the Jews comes also to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ is developed only later in the NT. So then, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude from Acts 2:39 that the children of covenant members are the recipients of the same promise as their parents. And this is not even to mention the obvious reference to the Abrahamic covenant and the continuity of that covenant with the new covenant.


Third, the children of covenant members were BAPTIZED WHEN THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED. It is well known that both Acts and 1 Corinthians contain several examples of household baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16). However, what is not as well known is the fact that in several cases the author only records the faith of the head of the household. This is true of both Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-34). Please note that the point is not that these households necessarily included infants, which we should not assume, or even that the children in the household were baptized without faith; the point is, however, that for some reason Luke considered the faith of the head of the household (Lydia, the Philippian jailer) as a sufficient rationale for baptizing the whole household. The skilled theologian needs to provide a reason why Luke thought this was sufficient.At this point, it should seem sufficiently clear that the understanding of Acts 2:39, which has already been discussed above, provides that rationale. At the very least, baptism is an outward sign of God’s promise to baptize his people in the Holy Spirit. According to Luke, the children of believers were baptized along with their parents precisely because God makes the exact same promise to them. This does not mean that the children have no responsibility to believe that promise. In point of fact, in order to benefit from the promise, they must believe. However, on the positive side, it does mean that God does not need their faith before he makes his promise. God gives his promise based on the covenant, not the faith of individual covenant members. Therefore, God’s covenantal promise is the basis of their faith, not the other way around. As Luther correctly asserts, “Faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith;” and he says, “True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith” (Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition, Edited by T. Lull, pp. 249, 253). Moreover, since God’s promise is an extension of the covenant, he makes the same promise to all covenant members. Therefore, since children are members of the covenant (1 Corinthians 7:14) and recipients of the promise made to their parents (Acts 2:39), they were baptized along with their parents.


Fourth, children are addressed as MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. When Paul writes to “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus,” he later includes children among the people he addresses. For example, in Ephesians 6:1, he says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Now, it should be quite obvious that since he writes to saints in Ephesus, who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and since he addresses children in this text, he certainly assumes that these children are saints and even believers. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they were not included as members of the Christian church, even as they are mentioned here as serving in that capacity.


Fifth and finally, children, even infants, are INCLUDED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Consider Luke 18:15-17. In verse 15, people are brining infants (Greek: ta brephe) to Jesus for his blessing. However, the disciples try to prevent them from doing so. Jesus corrected his disciples and said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (v.16). It was probably surprising to the disciples that the reason Jesus permits the children to come to him is because the kingdom of God belongs to such as them. Jesus neither says to such like them nor does he mean it. He means that the kingdom of God belongs not only to those who are childlike, but he also means that it belongs to children. Hence, it is appropriate to say that children, even infants (cf. v.15), are included in the kingdom of God. Jesus probably means children in general, not necessarily every child without distinction. However, at the very least, it would include the children of his covenant people.


So then, in conclusion, according to the NT, the children of believers are holy, recipients of God’s promise, baptized along with their believing parents, addressed as Christians, and included in the kingdom of God. These observations are astonishing, and they do not even include the additional observations that could be made about the continuity of the new covenant with the previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), which all included children. Thus, the NT leads us to believe that the covenantal status of the children of believers is equal to the covenantal status of their parents.

An Echo of the Abrahamic Promise in the New Covenant

The promise of the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Although our Reformed Baptist brothers in Christ claim that the nature of the New Covenant excludes the practice of infant baptism, the details of the text suggest otherwise.

Moreover, although the New Covenant is a discontinuation of the Mosaic Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32), it is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant, and since the Abrahamic Covenant included children, the New Covenant also includes the children of covenant members.

It is not the purpose of this post, however, to demonstrate the theological validity of this argument about the inclusion of children. Instead, this post simply seeks to highlight an echo of the Abrahamic promise in the New Covenant. It is true, though, that this echo should be part of the larger argument about the continuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants and the inclusion of children in the administration of the New Covenant.

The echo of the Abrahamic promise in the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:33: “…And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This verse echoes the Abrahamic promise found in Genesis 17:7, which says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” This is the great promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. Indeed, this is the great promise of the covenant of grace in every administration. God promises to be God to his people. But who are his people?

Here is what the exegete needs to observe – the background of the phrase “my people” in Jeremiah 31:33 is “you and your offspring after you” in Genesis 17:7. In other words, God includes the offspring (seed, descendents, children) of covenant members in his people.

Emphatically, then, the New Covenant does not exclude people (i.e. children of covenant members) who were previously included in the Abrahamic Covenant. In point of fact, the New Covenant celebrates their full inclusion because the New Covenant promises to write the law of God on the heart, not merely on tablets of stone (cf. Jeremiah 31:33).

The Lord Jesus Christ- the Promised Seed, True Israel, and Last Adam-Part One

At times, redemptive history seems turned on its head and the wicked seem to outnumber the righteous. However, the continual message of Scripture is one of hope: the meek will inherit the earth (cf. Matt. 5:5), the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will spread throughout the world (cf. Habb. 2:14), the cities of this world will become the cities of our Lord (cf. Rev. 11:15), and unrighteousness will be banished from Zion (cf. Rom. 11:26). While we may at times cry out with Job, "Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power" (Job 21:7), we must remember that Christ is the fulfillment of the Seed Promise and has defeated the Seed of the Serpent.


It is interesting that the two chief moments in redemptive history occur in a garden. Both the first and last Adams faced the pinnacle of tribulation in the same setting. However, it is here where the similarities end. While Adam was tested in Paradise (cf.Gen. 2:9-15), Christ wrestled in the fallenness of Gethsemane (cf. Matt. 26:38). Adam was provided a helper (cf. Gen. 2:22), while Christ was forsaken by his disciples (cf. Matt. 26:40). Adam was confronted with breaking the covenant of life (cf. Gen. 3:1), while Christ was confronted with the daunting task of facing the divine tribunal (cf. Matt. 26:39). Most significantly, Adam broke the covenant of life (cf. Genesis 3:6-7), while Christ kept it for those whom he represented (cf. Rom. 5:18).

Immediately following Adam's trespass, God institutes what is commonly known as the Seed Promise, or the protoevangelium. It is called the protoevangelium because it is precisely that, the earliest mention of the gospel in the Scriptures. It is found in Genesis 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

This promise made to our antediluvian ancestors quickly becomes the theme of the Scriptures and of redemptive history. Our progenitors earnestly longed for the fulfillment of this promise. How merciful the account of the Fall demonstrates God to be! Even after Adam's rebellion, he provides the gospel. He does not wait one generation (though who could fault God if he did) but immediately provides a covering (cf. Gen. 3:21).

So prominent was this promise on our ancestors' minds, that even with the birth of Cain, they were looking for the fulfillment (cf. Gen. 4:1). The events that unfolded would demonstrate, however, that Cain was actually the Seed of the Serpent, who would murder his brother (cf. Gen. 4:8) and go to build a city of wickedness in the land of Nod (Gen. 4:16). This perpetuates the continual conflict between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent foretold in the protoevangelium. At times, redemptive history seems turned on its head and the wicked seem to outnumber the righteous. However, the continual message of Scripture is one of hope: the meek will inherit the earth (cf. Matt. 5:5), the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will spread throughout the world (cf. Habb. 2:14), the cities of this world will become the cities of our Lord (cf. Rev. 11:15), and unrighteousness will be banished from Zion (cf. Rom. 11:26). While we may at times cry out with Job, "Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power" (Job 21:7), we must remember that Christ is the fulfillment of the Seed Promise and has defeated the Seed of the Serpent.

Bearing in mind the Seed Promise as the theme of the Scriptures enables us to see the unity of all of the Bible. When we come to Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant, it is quite clear that God is not beginning something new but continuing to develop the promise from Genesis 3:15. The Abrahamic Covenant and its direct fulfillment in the emergence of Israel as a nation is simply an expansion of the protoevangelium. We will look at this in greater detail in part two. Soli deo gloria!

Paedobaptism Article

The following is a brief article I wrote a few months ago which defends and advocates the position of paedobaptism. The complete title of the essay is: "Exulting in the Glorious Unity Between the Old and New Covenants Through God's Faithfulness to All Generations Displayed in the Sign and Seal of Household Baptism." I have republished it here for your edification.

While there is an increasing tendency among members of both the credobaptism (believer baptism) and paedobaptism (infant baptism) groups to speak past one another and to insist that the burden of proof falls on the opposing side to justify their position, this will not be my approach. In order to breed better understanding of the subject matter at hand, special pleading should be exempt from all our discussion regarding such a polemical issue. It has been said that this is an intramural debate. This is true. As Christians, both sides believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, its authority in faith and practice, and its perspicuity in all of its teaching. Thus, should we be found in error, we must be ready to conform our life to the entirety of Scripture's doctrine, what is conveyed by the latin phrase tota scriptura. With this in mind, let us assume the attitude of the Bereans as we approach this difficult matter and be prepared to search the Scriptures daily to find out whether or not these things are so (Acts 17:11).

In the following argument, I will not appeal to the early church fathers and their views as the basis for my position. Though such a study would be profitable, it falls beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, while the church fathers are an authority they are not an infallible one. Should I demonstrate beyond any significant doubt that the notion of individual admission to the covenant community divorced from the household administration would have been virtually unintelligible to the ancient church, one could still respond that the consensus was in error and not in accord with the truth of Scripture. And while we frown upon such a reactionary stance towards the authority of church tradition and history as a guide, we cannot fault those who seek warrant from the only, ultimately trustworthy guide: the Holy Writ. Neither in this argument will you find any reference to the mode of baptism, as such discussions tend only to wander into lexical fallacies regarding the meaning of the Greek word baptismo. The reader should not anticipate a thoroughgoing investigation of John's Baptism either (cf. Matthew 3:1-17; Luke 3:7-22). The simple reason for this is because John's Baptism is a baptism of repentance and is not Christian Baptism. Christian Baptism was a positive institution made by our Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 28:18-20). Therefore again, John's Baptism, while intriguing, does not fall into the range of our discussion.

Before I present my thesis, it is necessary to clarify a rule of interpretation that, if followed, I believe will erase all doubt concerning this issue. The historic, Reformed hermeneutic that is seldom applied when approaching the topic of baptism is that a Biblical paradigm or precedent is not nullified unless specifically stated to be abrogated. This Paul makes abundantly clear when arguing with the Judaizers about how the law cannot make void God's covenant with Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:17). For a principle to be changed, there must be clear and obvious warrant. Such is the case with such radical changes as the repealing of the dietary laws (cf. Acts 9:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:4-5) and the Levitical priesthood (cf. Hebrews 7:11-19), both of which needed explicit Scriptural mandates that declared their annulment. Even in the case of Gentile inclusion in the New Covenant, which has substantial Old Testament evidence (cf. Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 66:23; Joel 2:28), there needed to be consistent, unambiguous teaching on this matter (cf. Acts 15:1-29; Romans 1:16; Galatians 3:26-29; Ephesians 3:1-7; Rev. 5:9). We need then to seriously examine what the paradigm was concerning God and His covenantal dealings with man and whether or not this was abrogated in the New Testament. Did God make covenants primarily with individuals alone or with individuals and their children? I believe the answer that we will find in Scripture to be most enlightening.

Because the sacrament of baptism was both an explicit and positive institution established by the Lord Jesus Christ, the evidence must be overwhelming if we are to include our children as recipients of this covenantal sign. The stakes are extremely high. I believe that under close scrutiny the household baptism principle will prove not only to be the more Biblical position but be an inescapable imperative upon all Christians who desire to raise their children in the "training and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4). And rightfully so, for we must never concede to a position just because it appears to be the more Biblical one but because the data of Scripture commands our conscience so that we are, as Martin Luther so eloquently put it at the Diet of Worms in 1521, "held captive to the Word of God." The Regulative Principle demands as such. With that said, we must recognize that we obtain our doctrine not from apostolic command alone but from apostolic example as well. The apostolic precedent established consistently throughout the early church is that of administering the means of grace to entire households. Clouding much of our thinking, is this post-Enlightenment idea of individualism. Many of these Lockean categories of thought would have been just as foreign and strange to the apostolic church as the cultural practices of first century Palestine are to us today. We must never read them back into the text. To do so is to commit flagrant eisegesis. It is my strong belief that this is what is done in most credobaptist circles today. Such anachronism only serves to distort the Scriptures. Instead, I am convinced that the position of infant baptism serves to best demonstrate the internal consistency of Scripture, because the corporate mindset behild the Old Covenant is never removed in the New Covenant but is rather confirmed.

From the outset of Scripture, we see God initiating and establishing this corporate mindset. As we have heard many a time before, the first reference we have in the creation account from Genesis 1 of anything not being good is Adam's isolation, or, dare I say, his individualism. It is God's decision to create a helpmate for Adam that institutes the corporate mindset as we find in Adam and Eve's fellowship the first community. Later, when Adam severs his covenant with God, we know that his children incur the penal ramifications as well for they were represented by him. It is only if we approach God's covenant with Adam from a corporate mindset that we can make any sense at all of how God can impute Adam's sin to all of his progeny (cf. Romans 5:12). Yet our doctrine of original sin hangs entirely on this concept. Before we become too dismal, we must remember we are not left without hope for in the protoevangelium (cf. Genesis 3:15), a Seed is mentioned who will crush the head of the serpent. What goes largely unnoticed in this promise is the fact that God makes it not only with Eve but with her seed (children). This, of course, begins the theme of Scripture where the ongoing struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the sermons is displayed. As we move forward in redemptive history, we find God continuing to deal with his people in covenants. Every single one of the covenants that we find mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures involve an individual and his children: the Noahic, the Abrahamic, and the Davidic. Are we even surprised then to find God bringing down covenantal curses not only upon the representatives of the covenant but upon the children of the representatives as well (cf. 1 Samuel 3:12-14; Deuteronomy 28:15-68)? It is apparent then that God's corporate dealings are an ongoing theme of Scripture.

Investigating one of the previously mentioned covenants a bit further, we will find that it is called an "everlasting covenant" and that it is equated with the gospel (cf. Genesis 17:7; Galatians 3:8; Luke 1:54-55). That covenant, known as the Abrahamic covenant, is chiefly focused on not only Abraham but Abraham's seed. Consider the strikingly corporate nature of the following language:

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7; emphasis mine)

"And God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.'" (Genesis 17:9; emphasis mine)

"Then God said: 'No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him." (Genesis 17:19; emphasis mine)

Paul then references the Abrahamic covenant and says that it finds its fulfillment in Christ (who is the true Israel who is obedient where ethnic Israel could not be). We are included among Abraham's children by virture of our union with Christ, the true seed of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:7). Thus, instrinsically the nature of the Abrahamic covenant was one that was made not with a sole individual but with an individual and his children. And from apostolic witness, we see that the external administration of the gospel (i.e. the New Covenant) must instrinsically include children.

But what is the New Testament's teaching concerning the status of children? Given the substantial evidence of God's corporate, covenantal dealings, we should expect to find undeniable evidence that a radical shift away from a corporate mindset to a more individualistic one has occurred. Instead, we find precisely the opposite. Consider the prophecies concerning the coming New Covenant. Each and every one of them include children. Notice I did not say that some or most of them included but that all of them include children, even Jeremiah 31. Here are but 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 ; 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; 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; 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; emphasis mine)

The status of children as covenant members and therefore recipients of the sign of the covenant (i.e. baptism) is further confirmed by the words of Jesus when he rebukes some of the disciples for hindering people who were bringing infants to Jesus to be blessed (cf. Luke 18:15-17). The credobaptist will rightly object that there is no mention of water and with this we will heartily agree. But what our brethren overlook is what Jesus says regarding these infants, brephos in the Greek. He says that "to such belongs the kingdom of God (Luke 18:16)." It is clear then that at least some infants (Luke uses the word for infants) are included in the covenant. The question is on what basis is a child included in the covenant and given the sign of the covenant. Paul answers that for us in his letter to the church at Corinth when, in the context of encouraging believers to remain with their unbelieving spouses, informs us that the child of one believing parent is regarded as "holy (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14)." While the opposition wants to insist that "holy" here refers to a child's legitimacy, such an absurd argument deserves not even serious consideration for marriage not a believing parent determines legitimacy. Let me be clear on what "holy" does not mean. It does not mean that the children of a believer is saved automatically. Nor does it mean that a child has original sin erased through the waters of baptism and is now a "blank slate" as the Roman church so erroneously taught. What it does mean, however, is that the children of a believer are "set apart" in their status from children to unbelievers. They are included in God's covenant community and therefore ought to be subjects of Christian baptism. If you are a credobaptist, consider this. Can you teach your child to sing, "Jesus loves me, this I know?" Can you teach him to pray, "My Father?" If not, why not? And if so, does this align with your view that there is no difference between a child of a believing parent and a child of an unbelieving parent? If you truly believe that Christian baptism should only be for adult, repentant individuals and not for their children as well, then your practice should evidence that belief. We, as Christians, ought to strive to be more epistemologically self-conscious, as Cornelius Van Til has so famously stated. For the children's sake, I am glade that for the credobaptist this is not the case.

Lastly, let us consider what baptism signifies. Baptism itself signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (cf. Romans 6:4-5). I would argue that circumcision depicts precisely the same spiritual reality (cf. Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 2:11-13). If they both signify the same reality, and if circumcision was the sign given under the Old Covenant administration, there is reasonable implication that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign. If this is the case, then one can no longer give the principal objection that the sign cannot be administered until the recipient understands the content of the sign for nearly every circumcision after Abraham was given before the individual performed faith. Obviously, we would not knowingly administer the sign of the covenant to one who openly denies the gospel but in the case of individuals we do not know if there is faith or not as there is record of men like John the Baptist and David who believed in Christ from infancy (cf. Psalm 22:9; Luke 1:15). But in the case of infants and others with mental deficiencies, should we deny them admittance into the covenant because we do not know if the outward reality is true inwardly? Is there not an objective promise contained in the gospel to these individuals? If we recognize that the sign of the covenant has thus been changed to baptism but that the administration is still directed towards whole households, I believe we will truly be able to take great comfort in the fact that the promise of Acts 2:39 includes our children. Soli deo gloria!