A Reformed Credobaptist Perspective
Comprehensive
Alan Conner has written the best little book on the extremely important topic 
of baptism. This book answers questions like:
- Who exactly are the members of the New Covenant?
- Is membership in the New Covenant confined to those who have faith in Jesus Christ, or should the babies of believers be included and called “covenant children?”
- How does membership in the Old Covenant differ from membership in the New Covenant?
- Does baptism replace circumcision?
- Is infant baptism (paedobaptism) a superior sign?
Biblical
The book ends with an encouragement for our paedobaptist brethren to reconsider their position based on two passages of Scripture: Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27. Considering these two passages, Alan Conner asks several questions that need to be answered:
- How are the “all who are baptized into Christ” described?
- Which baptism is in view, physical baptism with water, or spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit?
- Who is included in the “all?”
- If a paedobaptist claims that these two passages imply that baptized infants are included in the “all,” then do they not have to honestly admit that they are united with Christ, clothed with Christ, regenerated with newness of life, and savingly in Christ?
- Do they not also have to admit that their baptism helps to confer these blessings upon them in some way since they cannot believe on their own (which is what the Roman Catholics believe)?
Recommended
I recommend this book to all who are studying covenant theology and biblical baptism, and to all parents. Furthermore I recommend this book to all paedobaptists who are open-minded to their beliefs as far as being convinced by Scripture over-against tradition or even ecclesiastical confessions.
My Hypothetical Question
Finally let me asks all to consider this hypothetical question:
- Lets suppose that there were two guys who grew up in godly homes: one in a godly Presbyterian home and the other in a godly Reformed Baptist home.
- The Presbyterian was baptized as an infant and later in life at the age of ten was regenerated. But the Baptist was not baptized until he was regenerated which was also at the age of ten.
- Did either guys have a spiritual advantage due to their mode of baptism?
I believe both guys had a spiritual advantage due to being reared in a godly home (1 Corinthians 7:14), similar to the advantage the Jews had since they possessed the prophets and law and patriarchs (Romans 9:4-5). But I do not believe that the Scriptures provide any instruction that would lead us to believe that baptizing an infant gives that infant a spiritual advantage. Furthermore, I believe the Presbyterian was actually given a disadvantage! Unlike the Baptist, the Presbyterian did not get to experience the joy of worship in his baptism. Since both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist understand that baptism is a mode of sanctifying grace, there is a greater blessing for those who are baptized at regeneration rather than as infants because the Presbyterian’s baptism really has no personal, cognitive meaning… at least not in comparison to the Baptist!
P.S. I love my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, but I do believe the Baptist got this one right. Grace and peace to you all.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I just got my copy the other day, looking forward to reading it.
Jason,
Thanks for the heads-up on this book. I look forward to reading it.
One of the most frustrating exercises is to try and get our Paedo brothers and sisters to forthrightly answer questions like the ones that Conner puts out there. I tried it for about two weeks on my blog, only to come away realizing that I was more grounded in my Credo position after witnessing the two-sided answers that were so often given.
When pressed, our Paedo brothers seem to hold some interesting views on some things relating to the salvation of their children, and on their understanding of what the new covenant really is and entails.
Keep up the good work, brother!
I edited the book for Alan prior to print. It is very clear and irenic. Thanks for pushing it!
I’m one of those “two-sided answers” persons Brian refers to, I suppose.
“…there is a greater blessing for those who are baptized at regeneration rather than as infants because the Presbyterian’s baptism really has no personal, cognitive meaning… at least not in comparison to the Baptist!”
For the record, as a former credo, I was baptized after my conversion. Actually that was my 2nd baptism. My first was at about 13 years old after my first (and false) profession of faith. But all my five children have been baptized as very young children. If you were to ask them, you might find an actual paedo baptized person who would disagree with your statement about their supposed missed greater blessing.
In any case, I too love my credo brothers. Grace and peace to all, however you were baptized.
BTW, our 2nd installment on the subject of baptism will appear on my blog later today (Lord willing).
Les Prouty
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/
FYI,
Les quoted from Calvin on my blog about this hypothetical question, Jason, and here is what Calvin said in the quote Les provided:
-Those who do not baptize their children are stupid.
-They are arrogant and cannot comprehend due to their carnal sense.
-Church members are less interested in unbaptized children than in those who are baptized.
-God will take vengeance on those who do not baptize their children.
So there you have it…
By the way,
I love my Paedo brothers and sisters too, and I would ask that you (Paedos) pray for all of us Credos who will be visited by God’s vengeance for not baptizing our little ones.
God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child – Calvin
If this is really true, and guys like Les really believe it (which I assume you do since you quoted it from Calvin), then I would think and hope that you would do everything you could to convince me to get my children baptized, and not just refer to this issue as a difference of opinion among brothers.
The Spiritual advantage is that the people of God are seperated from the rest of the people of the world by their baptism. Many Baptist realize that deep down something is lacking and prove this with their “baby dedications” for example. Conscience dictates that they ought to identify thier children with the people of God. Any spiritual disadvantage comes from the baptists neglect of including their children under covenant and among the visible church of God, consequently identifying them with the church of Satan. The spiritual advantage in this sense may be more for the parrents than the children. It we are to baptize and are not is it not sinful? There is more to being reformed than being reformed in our soteriology and eschatology. This is to be but partially reformed. Do not be reformed in soteriology and eschatology only my baptist friends but be truly reformed in your ecclesiology as well. Salvation is not by thy covenant, but God’s (Ezek. 16:61,62)! You believe in the sovereignty of God for salvation up to the point of your children and then would have them to be outside of God’s covenant until they are faithful! Why the shift in emphasis from the covenantal faithfulness of God to the faithfulness of sinful man, viz. children? Brothers let it not be so. Your children are under God’s covenant and their baptism ought to prove this.
And please don’t take this to be an unloving attack or attempt at controversy friends.
Les, Good to hear from you brother!! I didn’t know that you braved Fide-o or is this new since the conference? I saw Tony today and told him that we met. He spoke very highly of you.
Robert, thanks for your comments, but I disagree with this statement of yours on biblical grounds: Any spiritual disadvantage comes from the baptists neglect of including their children under covenant and among the visible church of God, consequently identifying them with the church of Satan. The spiritual advantage in this sense may be more for the parents than the children.
There is simply no biblical proof for such a statement… and infact, tons of biblical arguments to the contrary.
I challenge you guys to answer the questions in the post above concerning Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27.
By the way, I also ask both of my friends to note that in my post I have dealt with the sanctification that BOTH OF THE CHILDREN HAVE based on 1 Corinthians 7:14. But that text does not teach that that sanctification is due to a baptism but due to a relationship with a believer. That is proven by the fact that in that text an unbelieving spouse is also sanctified (blessed, separated, holy) because they are in a marriage covenant with a believer. Obviously that unbelieving spouse has not been baptized.
So, Robert, your argument is not supported by the text.
And Les, notice that I have compared the cognitive blessing of the paedobaptist with the cognitive blessing of the credobaptist. I did not say that the paedobaptist will say that don’t feel blessed. I said that compared to a credobaptist they do not have the same experience of cognitively worshiping God in their baptism. Thereby, compared to a baptist there is no comparison!
I hope Robert or Les will reply to your points, Jason, and will attempt to answer the questions concerning those two texts.
Something else has been brought out on my blog while discussing this issue with Les, which is that Paedos believe it is a sin for Christian parents to not baptize their children, but they do not discipline them for it.
He has even admitted that this is an inconsistency. But, I believe it is much more serious than that. How do you allow someone to the Table whom you believe is involved in an ongoing, willful act of disobedience and refusal to submit to the authority of the elders?
BTW, this is admittedly not directly on topic with the thrust of Jason’s post, so I may be out of line by these comments on this particular thread.
I find that going back and forth on such topics is like pushing an air bubble in windo tint. One gives their interpretation only to move the bubble and…you get the point.
As for the verses, the Baptist have a new interpretation of them–a baptistic interpretation that is only a few hundred years old or so. Compared to the history of the church as a whole the baptist are in the minority on the issue of baptism.
As for the actual verses in question, it should be obvious that they in no way exclude the notion of children of believers being baptized. The emphasis is not on infant babtism at all. The sub-title of the book reads “physical or spiritual.” This is a classic, and quite shamful, case of commiting the “either or fallacy.” There is an element of both! Take the scriptures as a whole brothers. Not all that are baptized are regenerate. Not all that were circumcized were regenerate but they were counted among the people of God. Baptism is not what we do for God as much as what God has don for his people. Furthermore any cognitive benefit begins at an earlier age if you are so baptized. You my baptist brothers have to wait on these benefits. When has God ever not included his children in the number of his people? This would be a foreign concept to ancient Israel and the early church. It is only in recent history that the baptist have began such a seperation. Finally due to the discipline issue, why be so zealous and eager to exact church discipline on what can be a complicated matter, a sin of ignorance as opposed to hardness of the heart, a possible matter of doctrinal conscience even? One side or the other is not heretical, but in error. Since when does the church go so far as to be willing to cast out so much wheat for the sake of a few tares? Be exhorted. Your brother and friend Robert.
See my article on A Deafening Silence, where I elaborate more on the topic.
Brothers,
I believe that this issue should not be subject to church discipline. I agree with Robert that one side is in error not rebellion or heresy.
Second, Conner’s book does a terrific job explaining the credobaptism practices of the early church, not only from a historical viewpoint but also from a theological viewpoint.
Grace and Peace.
* How are the “all who are baptized into Christ” described?
As baptized into his death and as putting on Christ
* Which baptism is in view, physical baptism with water, or spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit?
Physical baptism with water
* Who is included in the “all?”
Romans – all who are baptized as it is admonition to put away your sinful nature as a part of the new covenant. Galatians – the recipients of the letter, unless the credo want to argue that is the case for all- including false baptisms.
* If a paedobaptist claims that these two passages imply that baptized infants are included in the “all,” then do they not have to honestly admit that they are united with Christ, clothed with Christ, regenerated with newness of life, and savingly in Christ?
I think only the Galatians passage indicates these things for ‘all’ see above as to the ‘all’. Romans is a bit more difficult but I think 12-14 show the point of Paul’s argument (12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body) something I teach my children and I assume most credos do as well.
* Do they not also have to admit that their baptism helps to confer these blessings upon them in some way since they cannot believe on their own (which is what the Roman Catholics believe)?
I do believe it helps to confer the blessings how can being raised in a covenant home not help! I pray for and with my children, teach them the Bible and take them to worship etc. which is expected of parents of covenant children. The blessing do not come from baptism (the sign) itself but from a realization of the covenant by faith.
I tried to be brief and hopefully that hasn’t made my answers unclear. I realize I’m probably in over my head here as far as theological knowledge goes, but I do believe the paedo position.
Thanks for the blog Jason enjoyed you on the Narrow Mind.
Gary, Thanks for giving a stab at these important questions that Alan Conner asked.
Would you agree that “baptized into Christ and “clothed with Christ” is a reference to regeneration?
Would you not also agree as Robert has said that this is both a “physical and spiritual” baptism, thus the baptism of the Spirit is being implied?
And since the answer to both of these questions is “Yes,” then do you see the dilemma that this presents for the paedobaptist position?
If “all” that are baptized into Christ are regenerate, and all who are baptized into Christ should be baptized into water, then why would we baptized unregenerate infants?
And since Paul teaches in Colossians 2:11-12 that the believer in Christ has been both spiritually circumcised by Christ and buried with with Christ in baptism, then why would we baptized someone to whom this is not a reality?
Do “Believers Baptism” and “Infant Baptism” have different meanings? If so, show me a passage that explains it.
And why did no New Testament writer teach that we should baptize our infants?
Gary this may be addressed to you but if you don’t mind here is my input on the matter:
(1) Both paedo and credo Baptist hold to “believers” baptism. Infants are considered covenant members but may not be regenerate.
(2) No New Testament writer taught that we should not baptize our infants. I dealt with this in “A Deafening Silence.”
As you know brothers “all” may not always mean “all.” We deal with this hermeneutical detail with a grain of salt as well when debating the Arminians on atonement. What is being emphasized the status of infants or the state of regenerate believers? The latter doesn’t preclude position of the former.
And wow am I the worst speller in the world or what?
Gary, Thanks for giving a stab at these important questions that Alan Conner asked.
Your welcome
Would you agree that “baptized into Christ and “clothed with Christ” is a reference to regeneration?
Yes, but I didn’t notice in the ? you have “all who are baptized into Christ” Rom 6:3 states “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” To me this says ‘all of us’ meaning a specific audience of believers not “all baptized people ever” and “Clothed with Christ” from Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” says many were baptized then many put on Christ.
Would you not also agree as Robert has said that this is both a “physical and spiritual” baptism, thus the baptism of the Spirit is being implied?
I believe that was the case for these believers Paul is addressing. I was baptized as a child and understand that God has saved me by his grace in granting me faith, I have put on Christ. I don’t think either of the passages require that these events are simultaneous.
And since the answer to both of these questions is “Yes,” then do you see the dilemma that this presents for the paedobaptist position?
The answer is ‘yes’ with qualifications as indicated above. I see that if water=spirit the credobaptist has problems. It means all baptized are saved so then he cannot account for false professions.
If “all” that are baptized into Christ are regenerate, and all who are baptized into Christ should be baptized into water, then why would we baptized unregenerate infants?
All baptized into Christ are not regenerate, but all who are baptized into Christ should be water baptized.
And since Paul teaches in Colossians 2:11-12 that the believer in Christ has been both spiritually circumcised by Christ and buried with with Christ in baptism, then why would we baptized someone to whom this is not a reality?
Again I believe Paul is again addressing believers realizing the promise given to them as children or as adult converts.
Do “Believers Baptism” and “Infant Baptism” have different meanings? If so, show me a passage that explains it.
No, except in our modern world. It is a sign of our sinfulness (burial with Christ) and of God’s promise of salvation to his chosen, whom he brings to faith.
And why did no New Testament writer teach that we should baptize our infants?
I think Paul Manata made a great point in his debate with Gene. We should not expect them to teach this explicitly, rather we should expect them to specifically teach that infants NOT be baptized, which isn’t there. The Jewish default understanding would logically be children are in the new covenant as the old.
Robert,
The silence argument doesn’t hold water (no pun intended). For the Bible is NOT silent that New Covenant baptism is directly related to one’s conversion. So much so, the early church often referred to one’s baptism as the sign of one’s conversion. Necessary inference is necessary. But unnecessary inference is simply that — unnecessary and even erroneous.
On another note, the “Credobaptist baptize unregenerate people unintentionally so that gives us Paedobaptist cover” argument also does not hold water. That argument is as erroneous as if one tried to say that since we unintentionally allow unregenerate people to partake of Communion then we should just let everyone partake of Communion.
No, in both cases the Bible IS NOT silent. And Reformed Baptist practice what the Scripture says.
Grace and Peace, bro.
Jason, quite right. The argument from silence would only work in total silence, but since we are given explicit command and example to baptize believers but no corresponding example or command to baptize infants, the only Biblically defensible position is credobaptism. The only way to come to the paedo position is to approach with the infant baptism tradition and then try to find justification in the Old Testament for a New Testament practice.
Gary,
Galatians 3:27 does not say, “many were baptized” as you claimed above. Rather it says, “as many of you as were baptized.” The difference is that if it just said “many” then it is not referring to “all.” But since it says “as many as were” then it definitely refers to “all.”
And Robert was right on the point we are discussing about baptism being BOTH physical and spiritual. The trouble is that this truth argues against Robert’s paedobaptist tradition. The fact that baptism is BOTH is what Alan Conner proves and that is why only credobaptist get baptism right!
Now, Gary, you said that the Galatian believers and believers in Rome were regenerate when baptized. Good. But do you understand what Paul is saying in these passages? He is saying that those who are baptized are to be considered regenerate. “All” of them should be considered regenerate, he said. Robert says that “all” doesn’t mean “all” in this text, but he offers no hermeneutic to prove this. Rather he gives us a non sequitur about the Calvinism/Arminian debate.
Gary, I do believe that you have “put on Christ” when he granted you faith. But I ask you, were you baptized into Christ prior to that New Birth or not. If not, then why were you given the sign of baptism? Was it because your parents believed that baptism replaced circumcision? That is a huge theological issue: surely some New Testament writer would clearly tell us. But none did. In fact, to the contrary Paul expressed with the most serious tones he ever expressed anything that the signs of the Old Covenant in any form are no longer in use in the New Covenant! The Judaizers would have loved paedobaptism! But the Gentiles believers would have smelled the scandal from a 1000 miles away!
Notice Paul’s repeated teaching that our connection to Abraham’s Covenant is not via circumcision or infant baptism but faith. See Galatians 3:7, 26, 29. In other words, ONLY BELIEVERS are real covenant children today! That is what is “new” about the New Covenant.
And then Gary, concerning your statement It means all baptized are saved so then he cannot account for false professions. I mentioned to Robert that argument doesn’t hold water, because both Paedos and Credos unintentionally give the Communion to unbelievers. If your argument were logical at this point then we should baptize everyone we can including children and give the Communion to everyone. The Baptist will not stand for it. Yes, we may unintentionally give the sacraments to an unbeliever but we also practice church discipline and remove them from the church and thereby nullifying their “signs” because we say they “never were of us.”
Gary, you said, All baptized into Christ are not regenerate, but all who are baptized into Christ should be water baptized. I am not sure if you mean to say these words. Do you really believe that “all baptized into Christ are not regenerate”???
Gary, you believe that Believers Baptism and Infant Baptism has the same meaning? Really? Then why don’t you become a Baptist!
And finally your last point illustrates the CLASSIC fallacy of paedobaptism. You said: The Jewish default understanding would logically be children are in the new covenant as the old. That’s the point, Gary. Galatians was not written to a Jewish audience! So where is the paedobaptist teaching to the Gentiles. It is not there, or anywhere! Furthermore, the Gentiles would have completely rejected such a teaching.
Consider just how explosive the circumcision issue was for the Gentile believers. It was such an issue that some Jewish believers said that Gentiles could not be saved because they were not continuing the Old Covenant sign (Acts 15:1). The first official church council convened because of this theological uproar! The clear decision of the Apostles was made and signed in a letter and delivered to the Gentile churches (Acts15:31) — the Gentile churches were not bound in any way to practice circumcision. (See Conner’s book, chapter ten).
If the practice of infant baptism would have been implemented at this point to replace circumcision then the Jerusalem Council would have been the place to address and explain this. Of course, we would have know if this happened because the Gentile believers were already poised to reject anything that even seemed to be an attempt to bring Gentiles under the law of the Jews.
Rather than getting such instructions that would teach Gentiles how to continue a Old Covenant practice in a New Covenant mode, the Gentiles were given these instructions: Romans 2:28-29, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Galatians 5:2, 6, 6:15, Colossians 2:11, 3:11.
It is extremely clear in those passages that in agreement with the Jerusalem Council the Gentiles were not bound to the principles or practice of the Old Testament circumcision. (Conner, 68).
Conner said that we should just imagine Paul leaving the Jerusalem Council, going into a Gentile church, and saying “You guys need to baptize your children.” They would obviously ask why. And imaging Paul saying, “because of Old Testament circumcision.” A Judaizer would have jumped up and said, “AMEN!” And a Gentile brother would have said to Paul, “I think you guys need to go back to Jerusalem and figure out if we are in bondage to the Jew’s laws and traditions or not. Find out if we should practice a new version of old Jewish practices in order to be Christian. Should we begin putting the outward sign of inward regeneration on people even when we know they aren’t regenerate yet because they have no faith in Christ? We are confused.”
Consider this, Gary my brother. Just consider it.
Ok, I am just a senior at Southern Baptist bible college in north-east Missouri, so please take it easy on me and correct me if I am wrong. That being said, my understanding is that in the Old Testament, circumcision was a sign of the covenant. It was not the means by which one entered into the covenant. The means by which one entered into the covenant was by grace through faith, as Paul argues in Romans. Also, it was not until long after Abraham was said to be justified that he was given the sign of it in his flesh, circumcision. So to, in the New Covenant, we do not enter it by baptism, but rather by grace through, and the sign of that covenant is baptism. So, if the sign follows the event, it makes no sense to baptize prior to entering the covenant.
Am I wrong to equate justification with entrance into the covenant?
Soli Deo Gloria
Am I wrong to equate justification with entrance into the covenant?
Not at all, David. The only examples we have in the NT regarding entrance into the covenant are those first justified by faith.
But the Paedo will respond that their children are automatically in the covenant by virtue of their physical birth to Christian parents, which is according to the flesh every time, no matter how loud our Paedo brothers scream that it is not according to the flesh. It certainly isn’t according to the Spirit, because the only babies they stress that are in need to be baptized are ones physically born to Christian parents.
Jason,
Watch your assumption that Paedos baptize unregenerate babies. When I did that on my blog, Les and others came back again and again with, “we don’t know if they are regenerated or not…they could be!”. But when pressed, they would say they don’t presume them to be, but that they are just acting on God’s promise to be a God to their children. But when pressed on that, they would say that God is not a liar if He doesn’t save their children, even though He has promised to be a God to them. And when pressed on that, they would state that the new covenant can be broken, and is done so by all people baptized as babies who never come to saving faith. They would say that those baptized babies had apostasized from the faith, even though those people had never professed a faith from which to apostasize from.
And round and round and round it goes…anyone else gettin’ dizzy yet?
For the Bible is NOT silent that New Covenant baptism is directly related to one’s conversion.
You missed the point. Of course the bible is not silent when baptism is directly related to conversion. However, those that are converted are not always baptized and those that are baptized are not always converted. There is no proof text that repudiates infant baptism. The bible is silent on the matter. Just because Peter is mentioned doesn’t mean Paul wasn’t there as well. The only way to solve the debate is to argue along the lines of the meaning of covenant faithfulness. The paedo says God is faithful. The credo says man is faithful. Isac received the sign of the covenant not as a sign of Abraham’s faithfulness but God’s. Is not the Old Testament less inclusive than the New? Why have you turned the covenant of grace on end making it less inclusive? You go from being Calvinistic respecting the baptism of the Spirit in regeneration to being Arminian respecting the status of your very own children. You begin in the Spirit and wish to finish in the flesh as did the Glatians. The covenant is for Abraham and his seed. Christ has us already in the covenant of grace or else we could not be saved. Our faith does not validate the covenant. Christ’s blood does! The whole concept reeks of Arminianism.
Robert,
I am new to this debate, but once again, you are arguing from silence on the issue. You say that just because the New Testament does not speak directly on the issue, that we must accept it based on the Old Covenant. I disagree, for one, because the New Covenant (kainē diathēkē) is new, not just chronologically, but also new in the sense of kind and quality. Because of this, it is not correct to assume that there be a one to one correlation between the old and the new covenants. Just because God commanded it of Abraham to circumcise Ishmael, Isaac, and all all the members of his household that does not mean that we should do the same in the New Covenant. Would you baptize an unregenerate grandparent? An unregenerate step-child? Also, surely you would not baptize a baby girl, according the Old Covenant, they were only part of the covenant community by virtue of their father or husband and had no rights even then.
Soli Deo Gloria
The covenant is for Abraham and his seed.
Yes! And who, according to Scripture, is Abraham’s seed? It is NOT by virtue of being born into a Christian home, as you would have it, but it is rather those who are of FAITH who are regarded as the seed of Abraham.
That is so clearly put forth by Paul that it should end the debate once and for all.
Robert says, There is no proof text that repudiates infant baptism. The bible is silent on the matter. But the Bible also does not repudiate a lot of things that we don’t do. So what? That is not sufficient to base a practice that actually goes against what the Bible DOES teach about baptism.
Robert says, The paedo says God is faithful. The credo says man is faithful. Really? Where does a credo say that? Or is this perhaps a strawman?
Robert asks, Is not the Old Testament less inclusive than the New? No. Why would you say such a thing? Surely you are not defining the Old Testament in the same way as the Pharisees! Surely you are not taking the same attitude as Jonah! The Old Testament was inclusive of all people who had faith in Christ.
Robert then says, You go from being Calvinistic respecting the baptism of the Spirit in regeneration to being Arminian respecting the status of your very own children. Come on. Is that the best you’ve got, brother. That isn’t going to cut it. If I wanted to be Arminian then I would baptize my children and tell them to then live according to the covenant and don’t break it or you will lose it!
Robert said, The covenant is for Abraham and his seed. Well, Brian, sufficiently answered that one! Amen, Brian.
With all of that said, I really hope you guys read Alan’s book. He took this argument deep into OT and NT texts and did not just deal with hypotheticals and traditions. It is a great read.
PS – Robert and I went to college together and he is a good friend of mine. Back then he was a Baptist. Today he is still a friend, but just a little overzealous in his pursuits to correct the erroneous Baptistic garbage that we were getting in college. Brother, the Baptist were not historically wrong on this issue despite how misapplied it is today.
If I wanted to be Arminian then I would baptize my children and tell them to then live according to the covenant and don’t break it or you will lose it!
Is this not actually what the Paedos do? Do they not teach (by going to passages like Hebrews 6) that if one does not keep the new covenant, then they are covenant breakers and lose the benefits thereof?
It is true I used to be a Baptist pastor. I still am a baptist-just a paedo Babtist now. The little baptist denomination I was in began to excommunicate preachers that were preaching the doctrines of grace. I left and became Southeren Baptist but this was short lived then becoming PCA. Jason was and I still believe to be one of my closest friends. Jason was in my wedding. I truely long to have face to face fellowship again with you Jason. Jason was a cut above the rest while when we were in college. We fought the liberals side by side with relentless vigor. There is not much that we would disagree on other than baptism I don’t think. Jason is an impeccable thinker today, top notch. The internet and bloging has brought us somewhat back together. In fact your blog helped inspire me to start one.
But regarding baptism, I believe there are good reasons for my deflecting to the PCA. It has been (and still is)a long hard journey in doctrinal revision for me. I have not been raised to believe the things I now believe but have made what I believe to be a lightened decision to become a true covenant theologian. The thing that brought me to this position was not a verse here or there. But a complete paradigm shift. We can debate individual verses till the cows come home. The over all theme of the bible as a whole must be taken into account. We have two different starting points and therefore will never agree (unless God wills it). What convinced me was the notion that the baptist have man outside of the covenant. But we, I began to see, are not outside of the covenant and God’s plan of redemption, whether saved or lost. The elect of God are already in the covenant. It is not a covenant of equals but of a greater and a lesser. And the lesser has broken it. Nevertheless as Owen says. the covenant stands.”
This is no easy matter and we both like to debate it. You can take it and so can I. It is down right fun. This has been a good debate. But I am on your playground as a guest and so before a friend overstays his welcome I will humbly bow out of the debate leaving you guys the last word. Your brother and true friend Robert
Thanks Robert. You are a true friend indeed! And I never will forget those days at William Carey College — the stories have now turned into legends! I actually met a young man several years ago and he was a grad of William Cary; we shared a few stories. All of a sudden his eyes lit up and he said, “I’ve heard of you guys! Some professors begin their semesters with telling about a group of guys that turned the religion department upside down!” I just laughed.
Robert, I hope that our debate and discussion on this thread is helpful to all of our brothers and sisters who silently are reading and learning. We have disagreements, but we are truly together for the gospel!
Take care brother and may God bless you, your wife, and children. And if you ever come to the Left Coast you have a place to stay!
Hey guys. Looks like Brian has kept me sort of in this discussion, though I have been unable to get back here since I made my earlier comment.
True, Brian and I have gone round and round on his and my blogs. We will probably never agree on baptism. That’s ok.
When I get some more time, if anyone is still looking in on this post I might come back and engage.
But brothers, why do we “brothers” get so worked up on secondary issues such as baptism. This is not a fellowship breaker. We should still be able to have the Lord’s Supper together. Right?
I feel like we ought to be banded together to combat the rampant error sweeping the modern evangelical church. As a former SBC pastor and Baptist and Presbyterian seminary grad, I used to love to talk about baptism. Of late, the often strident nature of the e-conversation has soured me on it. Oh well…
Les
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/
Amen..
Imagine if you will the following argument in Abraham’s day:
Unlike the gentile convert, the Israelite did not get to experience the joy of worship in his circumcision… There is a greater blessing for those who are circumsized at regeneration rather than as infants because the Israelite’s circumcision really has no personal, cognitive meaning… at least not in comparison to the gentile convert!
Jerry,
Only one problem: we aren’t in Abraham’s day.
Since we are in the New Covenant I agree with Paul who said, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
Therefore I baptize those who have faith.
What makes you think Abraham wasn’t in the new covenant?
Jason,
I really appreciate your blog and have subscribed for some time. I want to thank you for your ministry and this blog. However, I wanted to respond to what seem to be problems with your reasoning in your post on 6/27 at 6:05 PM
My arguments below are based on two facts:
Romans 4:11 defines the sign of circumcision as “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he (Abraham) had while uncircumcised.”
Whereas the new covenant is defined as new vis-a-vis the Mosaic covenant (and not everything before Moses), and Abraham’s faith is held up as the example and proof of Paul’s New Covenant gospel message, Abraham was a new covenant believer.
In fact, to the contrary Paul expressed with the most serious tones he ever expressed anything that the signs of the Old Covenant in any form are no longer in use in the New Covenant! The Judaizers would have loved paedobaptism! But the Gentiles believers would have smelled the scandal from a 1000 miles away!
First, circumcision is not strictly an “old covenant” sign, as it predated the institution of the old covenant. The old/Mosaic covenant, which came 430 years later, did not invalidate/nullify this covenant of grace. Secondly, while I agree that Paul rejected the older forms, he certainly did not reject the substance signified by those forms. Paedobaptists agree with your assessment about the form, which is why we do not advocate circumcision for the new testament church. Your point about how the Judaizers and the Gentile believers is an unwarranted speculation and an attempt at guilt by association.
Notice Paul’s repeated teaching that our connection to Abraham’s Covenant is not via circumcision or infant baptism but faith. See Galatians 3:7, 26, 29. In other words, ONLY BELIEVERS are real covenant children today! That is what is “new” about the New Covenant.
To claim that this is what is “new” about the new covenant completely ignores the net testament commentary on the topic in Hebrews 8-10, grouning the new covenant’s superiority in the finished work of Christ, especially with regard to the forgiveness of sins. These things were signified and foreshadowed in the old testament (both before and during the old/Mosaic covenant), but not accomplished until Christ’s incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection.
Furthermore, the Gentiles would have completely rejected such a teaching.
This is another unwarranted speculation which appears to beg the question.
Consider just how explosive the circumcision issue was for the Gentile believers. It was such an issue that some Jewish believers said that Gentiles could not be saved because they were not continuing the Old Covenant sign (Acts 15:1). The first official church council convened because of this theological uproar! The clear decision of the Apostles was made and signed in a letter and delivered to the Gentile churches (Acts15:31) — the Gentile churches were not bound in any way to practice circumcision. (See Conner’s book, chapter ten).
Because the sign had been replaced with baptism, both of which signify the same spiritual truth: death to sin via union with Christ in His baptism/circumcision on the cross for us by faith. Circumcision pointed forward to this thing signified, baptism looks back to it.
If the practice of infant baptism would have been implemented at this point to replace circumcision then the Jerusalem Council would have been the place to address and explain this. Of course, we would have know if this happened because the Gentile believers were already poised to reject anything that even seemed to be an attempt to bring Gentiles under the law of the Jews.
Rather than getting such instructions that would teach Gentiles how to continue a Old Covenant practice in a New Covenant mode, the Gentiles were given these instructions: Romans 2:28-29, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Galatians 5:2, 6, 6:15, Colossians 2:11, 3:11.
R. Scott Clark has answered this well: “One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision upon Christians by the Judaizers is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign and seal. We were already identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. So actual physical circumcision is, in the new covenant, unnecessary. Paul tells those who wish to circumcise themselves, to go the whole way and emasculate themselves.”
Conner said that we should just imagine Paul leaving the Jerusalem Council, going into a Gentile church, and saying “You guys need to baptize your children.” They would obviously ask why. And imaging Paul saying, “because of Old Testament circumcision.” A Judaizer would have jumped up and said, “AMEN!” And a Gentile brother would have said to Paul, “I think you guys need to go back to Jerusalem and figure out if we are in bondage to the Jew’s laws and traditions or not. Find out if we should practice a new version of old Jewish practices in order to be Christian. Should we begin putting the outward sign of inward regeneration on people even when we know they aren’t regenerate yet because they have no faith in Christ? We are confused.”
That is exactly what God commanded Abraham to do to his sons. And to say that there is a big difference between Abraham’s practice and ours raises the value of Paul’s usage of Abraham as an example of new covenant belief.
Jerry,
Among the many places we could go in Scripture to prove that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant, lets look at what we the Benedictus, that is the hymn of Zacharias, Luke 1:68, where it is announced that the Lord has visited us and accomplished redemption for his people. In that passage, in which Zacharias is singing praise to God, he goes on to say that this redemptive visitation (which is the inauguration of the New Covenant) that is referred to in verse 68 is in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Luke quotes the song saying that Jesus came “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant: the oath that He swore to our father Abraham.”
That redemptive visitation, according to Luke, was in order to show mercy towards our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, diatheke, hagias, autou, His holy covenant. The oath, the orkon which he swore to Abraham, our father. So that passage alludes to Psalm 105: 8-10 and verse 42, and that passage views redemption, New Testament redemption, the whole complex of the birth of John and the birth of the Lord Jesus. This new visitation that is occurring at the time of the advent of Christ is viewed as God’s faithful response to His covenantal promise to Abraham.
In Acts 3:25 Peter is preaching form the portico of Solomon. And he says to the crowd, “it is you, who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers. Saying to Abraham, in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Here it is to be noted that Peter is addressing the men of Israel, whom he identifies, how? As sons of the Abrahamic Covenant.
This passage gives a slightly altered reading of the Septuagint version of Genesis 22:18. And in the context of the sermon that Peter is preaching links the coming of Christ to what? To the Abrahamic Promise!
For as God covenanted with Abraham, diatheke is used there, as God covenanted with Abraham that in his seed, all the families of the earth shall be blessed, and goes on to argue, so “He sent the Christ, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways,” verse 26. So God covenanted with Abraham, that in his seed, all the families of the earth shall be blessed, so He sent the Christ to bless you, by turning you from your wicked ways. And multiple thousands did!
Acts 7:8 says that Abraham was given the Covenant of Circumcision.
Does this help?
Or read Galatians 4:24 and its context and you will see Paul making it clear that the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are not the same though connected.
I was typing my comment above while you then expanded your comments. Thus I do not know for sure if they apply to your expanded comments or original comments for that matter.
Are you denying an Abrahamic Covenant?
Or are you just trying to separate circumcision from the Abrahamic Covenant?
Or are you tying to do and end around so that you can make a case that paedobaptism replaced circumcision?
Please clarify? I do not want to assume or misinterpret your thoughts.
Grace and Peace, brother.
I apologize for the double posting and the confusion it caused.
I believe your comments do address the short post, but not the longer post which should clarify my position and argument at least a little.
Are you denying an Abrahamic Covenant?
No. I am trying to discern where you see the Abrahamic covenant fitting into salvation-history. I view the Abrahamic covenant as an administration of the one covenant of grace that began after the Fall. I see the new covenant as another administration of that same covenant, albeit one with a dramatically greater scope and quality. I realize the Abrahamic and New covenants come at different points historically, and have different names, but I think they are tied so closely together as to be virtually indistinguishable with regard to their content and economy.
Or are you just trying to separate circumcision from the Abrahamic Covenant?
No. Obviously circumcision is tied to this covenant (though reaffirmed in the Mosaic covenant).
Or are you tying to do and end around so that you can make a case that paedobaptism replaced circumcision?
I would make the case that baptism (not just paedobaptism) replaced circumcision (see my prior post). But I’m not sure what I would be trying to get “around” to make that case. Both were signs that signified the same truth. One pointed forward to Christ’s work, the other looks back.
I am puzzled by your understanding of Galatians 4:24 and its context. Which two covenants do you think Paul is describing there?
Hopefully you can read and respond to this post and the prior post together. Thank you for your responses. I praise the Lord for your ministry and our mutual passion for the Reformed faith!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Also (and I hope this won’t post while you are typing a response as I just apologized for double posting:
Only one problem: we aren’t in Abraham’s day.
I should have explicitly stated my point. I wasn’t attempting to prove infant baptism with that remark. I was trying to demonstrate that the appeal to “spiritual advantage”/subjective experience/personal, cognitive meaning is unpersuasive since God gave Abraham a sign and seal of regeneration/justification by faith and then commanded him to apply it to his infant children.
Jerry,
I think I follow your reasoning. And I appreciate your understanding of grace being an essential part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Covenant Theology explicitly affirms that the Abrahamic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace, which includes the New Covenant. So as I understand you, I completely agree.
Concerning your attempt to disagree with me about infant baptism having less of cognative meaning than believers baptism, I must say that I do not follow your reasoning. I read what you wrote several times and I just don’t think I get exactly what you are saying. Please forgive me.
If it helps: I do think that circumcision had more of a cognative meaning to young boys than infant baptism does to presbyterian children. Why? Well, lets just say that it should be obvious – circumcision leaves a permanent physical sign that reminds a person everyday that one is marked.
The same is not true of paedobaptism.
So, again, I don’t quite see the comparison as valid.
Grace and peace, brother.
The point about the cognitive meaning of circumcision is certainly valid and well taken. I would only add that they were not able to understand what was happening to them until much later, when it could be explained to them (as baptism can be and is in paedobaptist settings today), despite the fact that they were receiving a sign of justification by faith.
I am glad to see that we agree on the relationship between the old and new covenants! Just so I understand your position clearly:
1. Do you agree that the Scripture equates the “old” covenant with the Mosaic covenant, and not everything prior to Christ?
2. If so, do you agree that arguments based on the differences between the “old” and “new” covenants do not appy to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, as circumcision predates the old covenant by 430 years?
3. Do you agree that in light of Hebrews 8-10 the primary difference between the superiority of the new covenant over the old is grounded in the finished work of Christ, especially with reference to the foregiveness of sins?
4. Do you agree that both baptism and circumcision signify the same spiritual truth: namely death to sin via union with Christ in His baptism/circumcision on the cross for us by faith?
5. Do you agree that God explicitly commanded Abraham to “begin putting the outward sign of inward regeneration on people even when we know they aren’t regenerate yet because they have no faith in Christ”?
Jerry,
I am sorry we do not totally agree about certain points of theology. It isn’t enough to break fellowship over! Amen?
But in answer to your questions: at least in blog form (which means briefly):
The only biblical references to the Old Covenant as such are references to the Mosaic System.
Both circumcision and baptism are emblems of identification. In the case of pre-Mosaic circumcision, it identified its recipients as identified with Abraham. Mosaic circumcision identified its recipients with Moses. Baptism identifies us with Christ. They are the same in that they are marks of identification. They are completely different in that they are in relationship to their particular covenant representative.
the NC is superior because its recipients are immutable with respect to its permanence in them by virtue of its application
And it is superior because of the immutability of its high priest
No I don’t agree with point #4. The emblems are only related with respect to whom they are identifying union. Circumcision was identification with imperfect covenant representatives-Abraham and Moses. Baptism is identification with the perfect covenant representative-Christ.
No, I don’t agree with point #5. The particular signs of the covenant simply identified the recipients with their respective representatives.
Grace and peace to you brother, from our Lord.
It isn’t enough to break fellowship over! Amen?
Amen!
The only biblical references to the Old Covenant as such are references to the Mosaic System.
Great. So do you agree that any appeal to the difference between the old/Mosaic covenant and the new covenant is irrelevant to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, as circumcision predates the old covenant by 430 years?
Both circumcision and baptism are emblems of identification. In the case of pre-Mosaic circumcision, it identified its recipients as identified with Abraham. Mosaic circumcision identified its recipients with Moses.
Do you have any Scripture reference to substantiate this claim? It seems to lack any exegetical support whatsoever.
Circumcision did not signify identification with Abraham or Moses, it was a sign of identification with Christ. Where do the Scriptures teach this? Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign of spiritual truth: it was a sign and seal of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. Circumcision was a sign of justification by faith. This is the interpretation that carries divine authority. Any theological construct that contradicts this verse is simply wrong. Do you agree that circumcision was a sign of justification by faith in Jesus Christ?
It also appears to contradict the following passages, which relate the physical sign of circumcison to the spiritual truth of heart-circumcision, something that God himself does in monergistic regeneration. How is this compatible with your view that circumcision is an identification with Moses and Abraham?
Deuteronomy 10:14-17 Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.”
Jeremiah 9:25-26 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.”
Romans 2:28-29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Note that baptism is very similar in this regard. It too is an outward, physical sign of heart-circumcision. Heart circumcision = regeneration = baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Promise:
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Isaiah 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.
Mark 1:8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Fulfillment:
Acts 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
the NC is superior because its recipients are immutable with respect to its permanence in them by virtue of its application
And it is superior because of the immutability of its high priest
Huh? Not sure I follow this correctly. Before the NC was inaugurated, did Isaac (for example) have the permanence of the blessings of salvation (regeneration, justification, adoption, perseverance, etc.)? Who was Abraham’s high priest? Would you agree it was the same one in whom he trusted, of which his circumcision was a sign and seal?
No I don’t agree with point #4. The emblems are only related with respect to whom they are identifying union. Circumcision was identification with imperfect covenant representatives-Abraham and Moses. Baptism is identification with the perfect covenant representative-Christ.
No, I don’t agree with point #5. The particular signs of the covenant simply identified the recipients with their respective representatives.
Again, can you substantiate this? How does Paul’s description of the meaning of circumcision in Romans 4:11 (sign and seal of justification by faith in Jesus Christ) not refute this? How does the identification of circumcision with heart circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Jer 9:25; Rom. 2:28-29) not refute this?
Perhaps you don’t agree with the premise. Do you agree that circumcision of the flesh is a sign of circumcision of the heart(regeneration)?
Jerry,
My view of New Covenant baptism is very simple:
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptised a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him, [1] of remission of sins, [2] and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. [3]
1. Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27
2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
3. Romans 6:4
Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance. I believe that this is clearly taught in Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 4:1-2; 1 Corinthians 1:13-17; Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:12-13,36-38; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 11:16; Acts 15:9; Acts 16:14-15,31-34; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:3-5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Philippians 3:3; John 1:12-13; Matthew 21:43
The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptised [1] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I believe this based on Matthew 3:11; Acts 8:36,38; Acts 22:16 and Matthew 28:18-20
Immersion, or dipping the person in water, is essential for the proper administration of this ordinance. Which I believe is biblically evidenced in Mark 1:5,8-9; John 3:23; Acts 8:38; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12; Mark 7:3-4; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50; 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5,8; Acts 2:1-4,17
I have no biblical reason in trying to make baptism some type of New Testament continuation of circumcision. If it were the case it would have been explicitly explained in the New Testament because the Gentiles would have had no idea what the significance of circumcision was.
Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again.” And those with such a profession are the only people that we baptize. The baptism of our church is in direct connection to a person’s conversion as an outward sign of the conversion, a means of sanctifying grace, entrance into the church, and access to the Lord’s Table.
Jason – thanks for your reply. I assume that since you haven’t addressed the questions I asked and haven’t substantiated the claims you made which seem to contradict the passages I quoted that this discussion has run out of steam.
But I would point out that arguments are not won by repeated affirmations of one’s own views. Hearts and minds are won (and bystanders edified) by carefully engaging and responding to the best objections against one’s views, showing them to be faulty, while showing that one’s own views explain and are supported by all the biblical data.
I realize that a blog may not be the best forum in which to do this, but it seems like a retreat to simply reaffirm a position after being confronted with passages which appear to contradict you view.
I am willing to respond to the additional affirmations you have made and the verses you referenced as evidence. But I suspect at this point you aren’t interested in responding to my arguments and points since you have waved off the ones I have asked already. Still, one is left wondering how your view that immersion or dipping is necessary gains support from the passages you quoted. Acts 2:1-4 where the Spirit comes down from above? Acts 2:17 where the Spirit is poured out?
Among the others you quoted as evidence of the necessity of immersion:
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
I assume you are quoting this verse because you believe the “went down into the water” implies that the eunuch was submerged. Simple question: doesn’t this mean Philip was submerged, too? It says “they both went down into the water”
Mark 7:3-4 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)
I suppose we are to assume baptism here means “to submerge,” rather than “to wash,” as all major translations have rendered it? Since your blog happens to link verse references to the ESV I will pick on you here: Imagine all the trouble those Jews went through to submerge(“baptize”) their furniture.
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Seriously? You quote this verse to support immersion? This is getting a little silly at this point, so I am just going to ask: who was it that was submerged in the red sea incident? As I recall it, the Egyptians were the ones submerged, the Israelites were sprinkled at best. Plus, it looks like this verse is clear historical example of infants being baptized, since they passed through as well. (Just a little humor there).
And I honestly have no idea what Mat. 3:11, Acts 1:5,8 teach about the mode of baptism.
I trust this is sufficient to show that in this case you have been fairly careless with your appeal to the Scriptures. I hope you won’t continue to use these verses without explanation.
Nevertheless, I thank your for your interaction, and I look forward to reading your future blog posts!
May God richly bless you. Soli Deo Gloria, brother!
Jerry, it isn’t good to make such assumptions. You asked me what I believed so I put it in one comment. I will get back to all of your other questions when time allows. Don’t worry it will not be long — I’ve just been a little busy, that’s all.
Till then,
God bless.
Great! Sorry for the false assumption. I look forward to more iron-sharpening!
Jerry, you ask: Do you agree that any appeal to the difference between the old/Mosaic covenant and the new covenant is irrelevant to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, as circumcision predates the old covenant by 430 years? No. Why? I still do not agree with your complete discontinuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant.
Is your theology similar to Kline’s?
Then you asked about circumcision not being related to Moses. Jerry, it is obvious that you don’t want to have a theology that connects circumcision to Israel of the flesh, it would crush your paedobaptism. But I tell you, Paul knew that circumcision was so connected to Jews which is who walked out of Egypt with Moses, that Paul required Timothy to be circumcised!
There is no doubt that circumcision is Jewish — not something that identifies you to pre-Abraham!
Besides,if baptism replaced circumcision then why did Timothy have to get circumcised? Seriously, that doesn’t make sense!
I don’t hold to a complete discontinuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. I believe they share much in common. They both are based on God’s gracious work, both point to Christ, etc. In addition, God refers to the deliverance from Egypt when He is cutting His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 (verses 13-16). Then, when God is about to deliver His people through Moses, he refers back to the covenant He had established with Abraham as the grounds for it (Exod 2:24). Nevertheless, the Abrahamic covenant is identified more closely with the new covenant than with Moses. That is why he is used as an example of faith by Jesus, Paul, and James. While the Mosaic covenant fits squarely within the one covenant of grace, it certainly has aspects that recall the covenant of works. It is this aspect that the prophets contrast with the new covenant, and this aspect that causes the new testament authors to declare that it is less glorious than the new (but not without glory, of course).
I would say my views are similar to Kline’s, but not identical, and only insofar as he holds to classic covenant theology.
I fully acknowledge that circumcision was to be given to Israel of the flesh. Where have I denied it? We share that view in common. Where we seem to differ is that I acknowledge that the sign itself has a primarily spiritual meaning. It is a sign of justification by faith in Christ according to Paul in Romans 4:11. It is a sign of regeneration in heart-circumcision, and has been since it was established (see the verses I quoted on this above). This seems to be a major crux of the credo/paedo disagreement. I believe God gave a physical sign of the covenant to be applied to Abraham’s physical descendants, and that the sign inherently signifies a spiritual truth. To rearrange your statement, it is obvious that you don’t want to have a theology that connects circumcision to regeneration and faith, as that would destroy a major argument for credobaptism (since one argues that THIS sign is spiritual whereas the other was physical). The problem is, Paul says this is exactly what circumcision was, and so do Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4, Jer 9:25, Rom 2:28-29.
Regarding circumcision not being related to Moses. I never said it was unrelated. I said it is did not originate with Moses and is not exclusively connected to Moses. It was given to Abraham. And I hate to bring up Romans 4:11 yet again, but it says it was given as a sign and seal of jsutification by faith in Jesus Christ. My point is not that appeals to the discontinuity between the old/Mosaic covenant and the new covenant are not relevant, because they don’t refer to the Abrahamic at all, but the Mosaic only. They don’t prove or disprove anything. You made those appeals, I was showing the error there. Can you find something in the prophets or in the new testament that stresses any discontinuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant? Any whatsoever? Or do all the references to Abraham and his covenant make a positive connection with the new covenant and its believers?
Finally, I would suggest that your appeal to Timothy’s circumcision is faulty. I’m not saying there is no argument to be made on this front, but rather that your explanation of it is flawed. You correctly connect circumcision to Jews, but you incorrectly connect it (through them) to Moses.
There is no doubt that circumcision is Jewish — not something that identifies you to pre-Abraham!
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this and how it relates to my arguments. I don’t doubt that circumsision is Jewish. Have I tried to connect or identify anything to “pre-Abraham”? I’m not even sure I understand what you mean here.
Finally, with regard to the necessity of Timothy’s circumcision, I have not researched this passage much, but it seems like Paul felt it necessary to circumcise him since he was an uncircumcised Jew, and therefore in violation of the covenant in that regard, and would have been a tremendous stumbling block to Jews and given ammunition to the Judaizers. But I don’t understand how this helps your argument. If you think Paul was opposed to the signs from prior covenants on the merits of those signs themselves, then how can your view explain Paul’s willingness to circumcise him. Would you agree that Paul discouraged Gentiles from receiving circumcision, but did not discourage Jews from doing so?
Jerry,
The point about Timothy’s circumcision is that it is evident that Paul did not think that baptism had replaced circumcision or Timothy’s baptism would have been sufficient. Instead, Paul had Timothy circumcised because their were many Jews in the region they were going through and he wanted Timothy (who was half-Jew) to be able to minister to them. Again, if baptism replaced circumcision then Paul would have been requiring Timothy to do something that was unbiblical, in fact heretical since baptism was now instituted as its replacement. So, the very fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised proves that Paul did believe that circumcision was replaced by baptism. Rather Paul viewed circumcision as still a valid practice among Jews part of what it means to be Jewish.
Now, moving on to other aspects of your argument: You continue to argue that the New Covenant is not really “new” but a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet Jeremiah calls the New Covenant just that – NEW. Kline argued that the New Covenant was renewing of the Abrahamic Covenant, but most theologians (including myself) disagree with that line of thinking.
Now, you asked: Do you agree that circumcision of the flesh is a sign of circumcision of the heart(regeneration)? No I believe circumcision of flesh was a sign that God performs a circumcision of the heart but not necessarily that person’s heart was circumcised. Thus girls did not need to be included in this practice. Believer’s Baptism in the New Covenant is a sign that the person has been circumcised of the heart, baptized by the Spirit and is a member of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
The point about Timothy’s circumcision is that it is evident that Paul did not think that baptism had replaced circumcision or Timothy’s baptism would have been sufficient.
I don’t think that necessarily follows. Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see why Paul’s circumcision of Timothy has anything to do with the sufficiency of his baptism or the replacement of circumcision with baptism. The question is, in what regard is his baptism sufficient? It was clearly sufficient with regard to identifying him with Christ, and serving as a sign of his regeneration, justification, etc. It was not sufficent to avoid offending the Jewish community in which they would be ministering. The interesting thing is, we are explicitly told the reason that Timothy was circumcised, and it was not because all Jews had a perpetual obligation to continue the practice. It was done for practical reasons only, not to fulfill the law.
Again, if baptism replaced circumcision then Paul would have been requiring Timothy to do something that was unbiblical, in fact heretical since baptism was now instituted as its replacement. So, the very fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised proves that Paul did believe that circumcision was replaced by baptism. Rather Paul viewed circumcision as still a valid practice among Jews part of what it means to be Jewish.
This does not follow. To say that baptism replaced or superceded circumcision as a sign of entrance into the one covenant of grace does not mean circumcision becomes a sin or a heresy. It is only condemned as sinful or heretical when done or required as a necessary action or marker to be in covenant with God.
Now, moving on to other aspects of your argument: You continue to argue that the New Covenant is not really “new” but a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet Jeremiah calls the New Covenant just that – NEW. Kline argued that the New Covenant was renewing of the Abrahamic Covenant, but most theologians (including myself) disagree with that line of thinking.
I didn’t say it wasn’t new. What I am saying is that we need to explain in what way it is new. The word translated “new” (hadas) in Jer 31:31 can mean “renewed” or “fresh” rather than something radically new or not previously existing. (Job 29:20, Lamentations 3:23, etc.) In fact, the verb form literally means, “to renew” (Psalm 53:10; 103:5, etc.) According to Jeremiah, the new covenant is “not like” the Mosaic covenant (31:32). So it is new with regard to Moses, not Abraham.
Obviously you don’t believe that every aspect of the new covenant is radically different than the Abrahamic. If that were the case, Paul would have been pretty foolish to cite the example of the Abrahamic covenant as normative for believers today in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. Do you agree that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of grace? Do you agree it was a covenant in which justification by faith in Jesus Christ was the ideal? If not, how can you possibly explain the following passages :
Genesis 17:7 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.
What does “to be God to you and your offspring” mean? Are you suggesting it is not a spiritual promise but physical only?
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Romans 2:28-29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
We don’t need to guess the way in which the new covnenant is “new”, or which aspects are new. That is the whole point of Hebrews 7-10. The chief characteristic of the new covenant is the forgivenenss of sins accomplished by Jesus Christ. Jer 31:34, Luke 22:20, 2 Cor 3:6-9
This is why the new covenant is contrasted not with the Abrahamic covenant, which emphasized God’s gracious promise (Gen 17:7, Gal 3:17-18), but with the Mosaic covenant, which emphasized the law (and hence, pointed out transgressions).
Hebrews 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 10:12-18 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
It is “new” with regard to the Mosaic (“old”), not with regard to Abraham. This is why Abraham is mentioned as he is in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. Can you name one passage of scripture that contrasts the Abrahamic with the New covenant? Or do you agree that all of the new testament references to the Abrahamic covenant cite it favorably?
Now, you asked: Do you agree that circumcision of the flesh is a sign of circumcision of the heart(regeneration)? No I believe circumcision of flesh was a sign that God performs a circumcision of the heart but not necessarily that person’s heart was circumcised. Thus girls did not need to be included in this practice. Believer’s Baptism in the New Covenant is a sign that the person has been circumcised of the heart, baptized by the Spirit and is a member of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Defining the meaning of these signs in this way is begging the question. What does the word “seal” (sphragis) mean in Romans 4:11?
Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Do you believe that it was only sign and seal of faith to Abraham? What was its meaning and value to his children? What about to Gentile converts to Judaism who were circumcised as adults?
In any case, I agree with you that believer’s baptism does indeed mean that the person has already received those blessings, just as believer’s circumcision (i.e. Abraham and adult proselytes to Judaism) was a sign and seal that the person had already received heart circumcision and justification by faith.