By Greg Welty
greg@welty.clara.net
(M.Div,
The first to present his case seems right, till
another comes forward and questions him--Proverbs 18:17
A printed version is available from:
Reformed Baptist Publications
2001
(714) 447-3412 (Office & FAX)
As a Baptist student at a
Reformed seminary, I encountered many theological pressures -- from students
and teachers alike -- to convert to a paedobaptistic view. After much study, I
came out convinced that "Reformed Baptist" was not a contradiction of
terms (as my paedobaptist peers admonished me), but a qualification of
terms, a subjecting of the traditionally Reformed version of covenant theology
to a more careful biblical scrutiny. And so while abundantly grateful for my
training in Reformed theology at seminary, for both the piety and the
scholarship of my professors, I have concluded that the doctrine of infant
baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence deduced from Scripture (to
use the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I.vi).
In my readings on the
subject of baptism, Paul K. Jewett's Infant Baptism and the Covenant of
Grace(2) was a revolutionary treatment of the subject. It was
the first full-length book I had seen which actually critiqued the doctrine of
infant baptism from the perspective of covenant theology itself. Some may
debate as to how faithful Jewett actually is to the details of covenant
theology, as those details are spelled out in the Reformed confessions. But his
basic identification of the problem as one of biblical theology was quite
insightful. Avoiding a blatantly dispensational approach, he applies the
Reformed emphasis on unity and progress in redemptive history to the sacraments
themselves, thus beating the paedobaptists at their own game of continuity and
discontinuity. To those who are familiar with Jewett, it will be clear that I
am indebted to him at several points.
This paper was originally
written to fill a primary need among the seminary interns and other young men
at my church. My own experience has taught me that nondispensational,
Calvinistic baptists are perpetually tempted to look over the fence of their
small and often divisive camp and covet the ministry opportunities available in
conservative Presbyterian circles. Many have made this leap, and often do so
because they simply don't have a deep, Scripturally-based conviction
that the baptist view is correct. Rather, they have absorbed their baptistic
sentiments culturally and emotionally, and thus often lose them by the same means.
Many have not been presented with an extended series of biblical arguments
against infant baptism, a set of arguments which is at the same time consistent
with their own nondispensational and Calvinistic perspective. So consider the
following to be a resource for seminary and Bible students who want a quick,
clear, and accessible summary of the leading reasons why Reformed Baptists (and
all biblical Christians) ought not to embrace the doctrine of infant baptism.
Paedobaptists, while
rightly affirming the fundamental and underlying unity of the covenant
of grace in all ages, wrongly press that unity in a way that distorts and
suppresses the diversity of the several administrations of that covenant
in history. To put it another way, paedobaptists rightly emphasize the inner
continuity of the various administrations of the covenant of grace, while
wrongly neglecting the various external discontinuities which exist
between those administrations. To put it in still a third way, paedobaptists
rightly stress the unity of redemptive history, while wrongly ignoring the movement
of that redemptive history. Thus their error is fundamentally one of biblical
theology, of understanding the progressive unfolding of God's
redemptive purposes in history.
This hermeneutical error,
thus stated, inevitably leads to a twofold distortion of the relationship
between the two testaments of the Bible. Paedobaptists simultaneously
"Christianize" the Old Testament (read the Old Testament as if it were
the New(3)) and "Judaize" the New Testament (read the New
Testament as if it were the Old). In thus "Christianizing" the
Old Testament, paedobaptists restrict the significance of circumcision to
purely spiritual promises and blessings, while neglecting its national,
earthly, and generational aspect. In thus "Judaizing" the New
Testament, paedobaptists import Old Testament concepts of "covenantal
holiness," "external holiness," "external members of the
covenant," "external union to God," "covenant
children," etc. into the New Testament, even though these distinctions are
entirely abolished by the New Testament and completely foreign to its teaching.
Four biblical passages may
be set forth as the exegetical basis for identifying and exposing this basic
hermeneutical error of paedobaptists: Jeremiah 31:31-34, Jeremiah 32:37-41,
John 1:11-13, and Romans 9:2-4/8:15-17. Many other passages of Scripture could
profitably be examined on this point, but none speak to the vital issues so
clearly or succinctly.
1) Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,'
declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Jeremiah's statement is
central, not peripheral, to identifying the relationship between the New
Covenant and previous historical administrations of the one covenant of grace.
Jeremiah's words are quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, in Hebrews 10:16-17, and alluded
to by our Lord in John 6:45. They speak directly to the issue of continuity and
discontinuity between the covenant administrations. Three implications clearly
follow from Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant.
First, the New Covenant
is an unbreakable covenant. The very reason why God established this New
Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32). And if the
New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant, then the paedobaptists have
failed to recognize an important discontinuity between the New Covenant
and the previous covenant administrations. The covenant as administered to
Abraham and to Moses was breakable. "Any uncircumcised male, who has not
been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken
my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). "They broke my covenant" (Jeremiah
31:32; cf. Deuteronomy 28, 29:19-25). But according to Jeremiah, the covenant
as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.
Second, the New Covenant
is made with believers only. This of course is the exact reason why the New
Covenant is unbreakable, for only believers will persevere to the end
without breaking God's covenant. Three blessings are spoken of with respect to
the New Covenant: law written on the heart--"I will put my law in
their minds and write it on their hearts" (v. 33); personal knowledge
of God--"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his
brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from
the least of them to the greatest" (v. 34a); and forgiveness of sins--"For
I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (v.
34b). Now the contrast between the Old and the New is not that these
three blessings will be experienced for the first time in redemptive
history by the people of God! That would be to succumb to radically
dispensational assumptions. The elect in every age have experienced
these blessings, including the elect under the Old Covenant--law written on the
heart (Psalm 37:31, 9:10, 76:1); personal knowledge of God (1 Samuel 2:12,
3:7); the forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32:1-2). Rather, the true contrast
between the Old and the New Covenants is that now under the New Covenant, all
who are covenant members experience these peculiar blessings. The fact that not
all covenant members experienced these blessings under the Old Covenant
is part of the divine motivation for readministering the covenant under the
New! (v. 32: "It will not be like the covenant I made with their
forefathers . . . because they broke my covenant.")
Third, the New Covenant
is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings. It
is not made with those who have not experienced these blessings.
This is simply a restatement of the first two implications already mentioned.
Thus in accordance with the covenant as newly administered in Christ, baptists
do not give the New Covenant sign to those who give no evidence of being in the
New Covenant. While recognizing the proper Old Testament distinction
between an external covenant (elect and non-elect) and an internal covenant
(elect only), baptists understand this external/internal distinction to be
abolished in the New Covenant. No one is in covenant with God who is not a
believer. Thus when paedobaptists speak of their "covenant children"
as "breaking covenant" (i.e. becoming apostate by rejecting the
faith), baptists rightly respond, "What covenant are you talking about?
Obviously not the New Covenant! Only those who have the law of God
written on their hearts, who know the Lord, and who have their sins forgiven,
are in the New Covenant! Your 'covenant children' were never in
the New covenant, and so never should have received the New Covenant
sign!"
Now paedobaptists may try
to reinterpret this passage in at least four possible ways, in order to
preserve their belief that non-elect persons (such as their "covenant
children") may still be in "external" covenant with God, as was
the case under the Old Covenant.
A) Paedobaptists may claim
that Jeremiah's phrase, "they shall all know me," applies only to
those covenant members who happen to be elect, but not to all
covenant members whatsoever. Thus the Lord is saying through Jeremiah,
"All (the elect) shall know me," not "all (who are in the
covenant) shall know me." But this would be to erase the very difference,
the very contrast, the very newness that Jeremiah is attributing to the New
Covenant! In every covenant administration (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic)
only the elect covenant members knew the Lord, even if all covenant members
whatsoever did not. Rather, Jeremiah is saying here that all the
covenantees, all who are in the New Covenant, will know him. Thus only the
elect are in the New Covenant. There are no covenant members who do not know
the Lord.
B) Paedobaptists may claim
that Jeremiah's phrase, "they shall all know me," applies to all
types of people in the New Covenant. Thus they interpret Jeremiah's
contrast to be, "Whereas under the Old Covenant only one type of
person really knew the Lord (the leaders: priests, prophets, and kings), now
under the New Covenant all kinds of people will know him, from the
greatest of them to the least." But this characterization of the Old
Covenant flatly contradicts the testimony of Scripture. Under the Old Covenant,
even the lowly Hannah (1Samuel 1-2) and Mary (Luke 1:46-55) had an intimate
knowledge of God, and not just the 'great' Samuel or David. All types of people
knew the Lord under both covenants, so this can't be the contrast
Jeremiah is drawing!
C) Paedobaptists may claim
that the knowledge of God which Jeremiah is speaking of is an external
knowledge about the things of God revealed in Scripture. Since paedobaptists
faithfully teach and catechize their "covenant children," all
covenant members do know the Lord under the New Covenant! But this is to
woefully mischaracterize the knowledge of God spoken of in Jeremiah. The very
point of God's complaint against the people through Jeremiah is that the
people, despite their external knowledge of the things of God, had yet
turned away from the Lord and rebelled against him. The one kind of knowledge
which the passage can't be speaking of is an external knowledge of the
things of God passed on by parents and teachers!
D) Paedobaptists may claim
that baptists are failing to recognize that the contrast which Jeremiah is
drawing here is between the New Covenant and the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, not
between the New Covenant and the covenant as originally administered to
Abraham. Since paedobaptists justify infant baptism with reference to the Abrahamic
(not Mosaic) Covenant, the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant as
different from the Mosaic is of no relevance for the question of infant
baptism. This point is well taken--the Mosaic Covenant was indeed added to the
Abrahamic promises, not repealing or replacing them but furthering their
ultimate purpose (Galatians 3:17-19). But reflection upon the realities of the Abrahamic
Covenant will reveal that each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between
the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and
the Abrahamic! Under the Abrahamic Covenant, all did not have the law written
on their hearts, or know the Lord, or have their sins forgiven. Covenant
children such as Ishmael and Esau, who lived under the Abrahamic but not the
Mosaic Covenant, bear eloquent testimony to this fact.
2) Jeremiah 32:37-41 "I will surely gather them
from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I
will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my
people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness of heart and
action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good
of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with
them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me,
so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them
good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and
soul."
Now to all
non-dispensationalist interpreters, the references to the land do not denote a
future earthly millennium, but the Christian's spiritual inheritance. This
passage is fulfilled in the church. It reiterates the teaching on the
New Covenant in the previous chapter. The text says that the covenant which God
will make with his people is an everlasting covenant. It will not be
broken and then succeeded by yet another covenant. The reference is not to the
return of the exiles under Ezra/Nehemiah, but to the New Covenant under Christ.
Central to the blessings of
this everlasting covenant is that, just like the covenant spoken of in chapter
31, it is an unbreakable covenant. The text says God will inspire the
covenant members to always fear him, "so that they will never
turn away from me." All thought of "covenant children" who break
covenant is banished in this covenant. Again, there is a contrast between
this New Covenant and the older administrations, confirming what Jeremiah has
said in chapter 31.
Yet blessings do accrue to
the children of these covenant members! Baptists should be among the
first to recognize the practical privileges their children enjoy by being in a
God-fearing home. Jeremiah says that those who are in this covenant will not
only fear God for their own good, but for the good of their children after
them. The faithfulness of parents in fearing God will have a profound effect upon
their children. But this blessing of "doing good" to the children
does not imply their covenant membership. The very terms of this covenant explicitly
describe all of its members as "always fearing" God and
"never turning away" from him. Therefore if believer's children are
to be members of this covenant, they must be among the elect. Simply because
they are believer's children does not make them covenant members. Nor does this
blessing guarantee salvation. To interpret this "doing of good" to
the children as a guarantee of salvation would prove too much for the
paedobaptist. It would imply that all "covenant children" are saved,
that there are no apostate covenant children. This is a prospect which no
(evangelical) paedobaptist accepts.
3) John 1:11-13 "He came to that which was
his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received
him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children
of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a
husband's will, but born of God."
Jesus came to "that
which was his own"; that is, to his own people. The Jews were his own
people because they were in covenant with God, under the terms of the Old
Covenant. They were properly considered to be God's children: "When
The implication is clear.
Under the Old Covenant, you could be a child of God and yet reject God. You
could be "God's own" and yet be on your way to hell. But in the New
Covenant it is not that way. Those who are children of God are not so by virtue
of their birth. John explicitly denies this. Rather, they are children
of God because they are born of God. In the New Covenant era, only the elect
can be properly considered children of God, "his own," in covenant
with God. The concept of "belonging to God," being a "son of
God," and being "his own" has been transformed under the terms
of the New Covenant. But the aforementioned paedobaptist tendency to
"Christianize" the Old Testament and "Judaize" the New
Testament flattens out this historical-redemptive transformation of terms.
4) Romans 9:2-4, 8:15-17
"I have great
sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were
cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own
race, the people of
Note that under the Old
Covenant (9:2-4), you could be adopted by God and yet be on your way to
hell, in need of the very gospel which Paul proclaimed. This parallels the
paedobaptist understanding of "covenant children" being in the
"external covenant." But under the New Covenant (8:15-17), all
those who are adopted by God have the Spirit of God within them, testifying
to their adoption. Because they are children, they are heirs of God who will
certainly share his glory. Thus the concept of adoption has been transformed
in the New Covenant. New Covenant adoption involves election, regeneration, and
the indwelling of the Spirit. Such indwelling was not necessary to Old Covenant
adoption, although Old Covenant adoption was by the design of God. All this to
say: the "covenant children" of Romans 9 (Old Covenant) are not the "covenant
children" of Romans 8 (New Covenant). There are no "covenant
children" (in the Romans 9 sense) any more.
Having seen the exegetical
basis for identifying the paedobaptist hermeneutic as indeed in error, it will
now be useful to point out how this error leads paedobaptists to overlook
significant discontinuities in both the meaning and function of
the covenant signs. Much paedobaptist argument dwells upon the analogy between
circumcision and baptism, inferring from the application of circumcision to
infants under the Old Covenant, the responsibility to apply baptism to infants
under the New Covenant. But this conveniently ignores the many disanalogies
which exist between these signs as well. Such oversight causes many
paedobaptists to overdraw the analogy between circumcision and baptism,
illegitimately transforming that analogy into an identity.
1) The meaning of
the sign of circumcision is not identical to the meaning of the sign of
baptism. We agree that there is a significant overlap of meaning between
the two signs (Romans 4:11; Colossians 2:11-12). But we deny that there is an identity
of meaning between the two signs. Circumcision signified specific promises and
blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many
promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which
confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15). Circumcision sealed the promises of that
covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical
descendants as many as the stars in the sky)--baptism does not signify this
promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many
nations"--baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or
"kings will come from you"--baptism does not signify this promise,
circumcision did. Or "the whole land of
Similarly, due to this
difference in meaning, we also deny that the relationship between physical and
spiritual blessings is the same under the Old and New Covenants. Under the Old
Covenant, the previously mentioned physical blessings were enjoyed, and the
promises for these blessings were cherished, by the Israelites, even by those
Israelites who lived an outwardly moral life but had no personal faith in the
God of Abraham. That is, the physical blessings of the Old Covenant could be
enjoyed even by those who did not personally experience its spiritual blessings
(as long as the community as a whole remained faithful). But under the
New Covenant, things are very different. Any covenantal promises and blessings
which could be construed as "physical" (the glorified resurrection
body, the new heavens and the new earth) will never be fulfilled or enjoyed by
those who do not personally experience the spiritual blessings of the
New Covenant (i.e. the elect).
Additionally, if
circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important
questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those
who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?
2) Baptism did not replace
circumcision as to its function among the covenant people of God. Jesus'
institution of the sign of Christian baptism commanded that it be applied to disciples
who had been made by the original apostles (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16).
Throughout the rest of the New Testament, and especially displayed in the book
of Acts, baptism functions in accordance with Jesus' institution of it. It is a
sign for disciples, who have placed their faith in Jesus (cf. Acts
2:38). All clear cases of baptism in the New Testament reflect this
"believers' baptism" policy. (The "household baptisms" will
be treated later in this paper.)
But if, as paedobaptists
allege, baptism did replace circumcision as to its function in the
covenant community, several problems emerge. First, why did Paul have Timothy
circumcised? "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so
he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all
knew that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:3). Surely if baptism functioned
the same way under the New Covenant as circumcision functioned under the
Old, Paul would never have done this! Something must have been signified in
Timothy's later circumcision that was not signified in Timothy's earlier
baptism as a convert. Second, why did Paul bend over backwards to accommodate
the Jewish converts' continuing practice of circumcising their children? (Acts
21:20-26). Why did he not rather challenge the practice as completely
inappropriate for Christian converts, since now baptism has replaced circumcision?
Third, why didn't the apostles and elders at the
Apart from their more
broadly hermeneutical and systematic errors (identified above), paedobaptists
often misuse isolated biblical texts in an attempt to find the practice of
infant baptism in the New Testament. The baptist response to these paedobaptist
misinterpretations needs to be given.
1) Acts 2:38-39 "Peter replied, '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. The promise is for
you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord
our God will call."
Many, if not all,
paedobaptists interpret this text to say that God has given a
"special" promise to the children of Christians, which insures that
they are in the covenant community, and are "different" from the
children of non-Christians. Baptists rightly respond that the paedobaptist ear
is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text ("you and your
children") that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo ("and for all
who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call"). (4)
The three phrases must be taken together: (1) you, (2) your children, (3) all
who are far off. According to the text, the promise is equally applied to all
three categories of people. There is nothing "special" about category
(2) which cannot be said about category (3), with respect to the promise of God
spoken by Peter.
Depending upon how the word
"call" is interpreted (outward call of the gospel, or the inward
call of God's irresistible grace), this text either proves too much for the
paedobaptist, or too little. The one thing it does not prove is a
"special" promise for covenant children. If the outward call
of the gospel is meant, then the text proves far too much for the paedobaptist.
It proves that the promise is for all who hear the gospel, "all who
are far off." Do we baptize all hearers of the gospel into the covenant
community, regardless of how they respond to the message? How does a promise
for everyone serve to distinguish covenant children from anyone else who
happens to hear the gospel? But if the inward call of God's irresistible
grace is meant, then the text proves far too little for the paedobaptist. It
proves that the promise is for the elect only. Indeed, it proves the baptist
position! Unless we are willing to presume election for our covenant children
(a presumption without Scriptural warrant, and fraught with practical dangers
for the child's Christian nurture), then we must baptize only those who
actually give evidence of being elect, of receiving the promise
(i. e. a credible profession of faith). This is precisely what happened after
Peter's sermon, for it was only "those who accepted his message" who
were baptized (Acts 2:41)!
Also, the content of this
promise is often misconstrued by paedobaptists. In the immediate and
surrounding contexts, it is obvious that the promise Peter is speaking of is
the promised gift of the outpoured Holy Spirit, as predicted by Joel. Do
paedobaptists assume that, because their children have received "the
promise," they have therefore received the Holy Spirit?
2) 1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband
has been sanctified [hêgiastai] through his wife, and the unbelieving
wife has been sanctified [hêgiastai] through her believing husband.
Otherwise your children would be unclean [akatharta], but as it is, they
are holy [hagia]."
Many paedobaptists
interpret that Paul takes it for granted that the children of at least
one believing parent are "covenantally holy," that is, in the
covenant community. They are not "externally unclean," like the
children of non-Christians. But this is a species of "hit-and-run"
exegesis. The same root word for "holy" is applied to both the
child and to the unbelieving spouse. If they are both "covenantally
holy," then why are they not both included in the covenant community and
baptized? Paedobaptists will baptize the child, but not the spouse. To posit a
meaning for "holy" as it applies to the child, that is different
from the meaning of "holy" as it applies to the spouse, is pure
eisegesis (reading into the text). The same root word is applied to both
persons. It also undermines Paul's argument that the holiness of the child guarantees
the holiness of the unbelieving parent. In order for his inference to be valid,
the same type of holiness must apply to each.(5)
In addition, the
paedobaptist interpretation of this text is a classic example of what was
previously identified as "Judaizing" the New Testament. That is,
distinctions peculiar to the Old Testament, such as "external" or
"covenantal" holiness, are read into New Testament texts.
Paedobaptists forget that the entire concept of "covenantal" holiness
has been abolished in the NT. In Acts 10:28, Peter informed Cornelius'
household that "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to
associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not
call any man impure [koinon] or unclean [akatharton]." In
the context it is obvious that Peter is speaking about external,
covenantal holiness, based upon external membership in the covenant community.
Thus the very thing which God commanded Peter never to do (call men
unclean because of their birth outside the covenant community), paedobaptists
do with respect to the children of non-Christians (call them unclean). They
forget that such distinctions have been abolished in the New Covenant era, as
God taught Peter.
3) Romans 4:11 "And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was
still uncircumcised."
Many paedobaptists
interpret this text to say that Paul is giving a definition of what
circumcision sealed for everybody who received it: righteousness by
faith. Thus circumcision was not a merely earthly sign. Rather, like
baptism, it sealed the highest spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace.
But paedobaptists overlook the fact that in the context, and in the verse
explicitly, Paul is speaking of circumcision sealing the righteousness by faith
which Abraham had, and a righteousness by faith which Abraham already
had. That is, in accordance with the biblical notion of a seal, Abraham's
circumcision sealed to him a present possession. It did not seal
his need for righteousness; it did not seal a conditional promise
of righteousness; it sealed to him a righteousness which he already had
while uncircumcised. Thus Paul in Romans 4:11 is not giving a general
definition of the significance of circumcision for everybody who received
it; that would go counter to the context of Romans 4, which is the personal case
of Abraham and how he discovered that justification is by faith alone. Rather,
Paul is giving the significance of that sign for Abraham. The fact that
circumcision signified many other realities for everyone who
received it (including Abraham) has already been discussed.
Of course, paedobaptists
may respond that the baptist view construes two completely different
definitions of circumcision: one for believers and another for unbelievers. But
we do no such thing. Circumcision signified the same promises to everyone who
received it. But to some who received it in faith (such as Abraham and adult
converts into the covenant community), it also sealed the righteousness
which they had by faith. Additionally, this paedobaptist response may be turned
against the paedobaptist. For they also posit two "different"
meanings for circumcision. For Abraham it sealed a righteousness which he
already had by faith; it sealed a present possession. But for Isaac, and
for all who received it in infancy, it sealed their need for
righteousness by faith. These are two different things, and they are
posited on the paedobaptist view of the sacrament, not the baptist view.
4) Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised,
in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the
hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with
him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of
God, who raised him from the dead."
Many paedobaptists
interpret this text as teaching that baptism and circumcision have replaced
each other, and have the same exact significance. These Gentile converts are
considered by Paul to have been circumcised, when they were really baptized. In
response, Baptists agree that there is an obvious analogy between the
two signs asserted here, corresponding to the overlap in meaning
previously mentioned. What we deny is the identity of meaning between
the two signs. Who is this text talking about? About believers! Who are those
who are circumcised in God's sight? Those who have put off the sinful nature,
and have been raised with Christ through their faith. Thus the concept
of circumcision has been transformed in the New Testament, to denote those who
have experienced salvation in Christ. It is this inward experience of spiritual
circumcision that is tied to baptism in the New Testament!
5) Household baptisms, of which there seem to be four in
the New Testament. It will be discussed later how paedobaptists never
consistently practice the same kind of "household baptism" policy
they claim to find in the New Testament.
A) With respect to Cornelius'
household (Acts 10:46-48), Peter's explicit warrant for baptizing this
household is that "they have received the Holy Spirit just as we
have," NOT "the covenant head of the household has converted."
Indeed, Luke explicitly records that while Peter was preaching to them,
"the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." Unless we
are willing to posit the reception of the Spirit, and speaking in tongues, for
unbelievers, we must conclude that this was a household conversion, on
the part of the individuals who composed it, and for that reason it was
also a household baptism.
B) With respect to Lydia's
household (Acts 16:15), baptists admit that evidence of an explicit
profession of faith among all household members is lacking. But baptists also
argue(6) that nothing in the passage implies Lydia was a married
woman with nursing children, for she traveled on business some 300 miles from
her native city; she felt the liberty, as head of the house, to invite men into
her home; Luke speaks of her household being baptized, and of the
importunity with which she constrained the apostles to abide in her
house, no mention being made of her husband. Thus the most likely hypothesis is
that she had no husband, and therefore no children. If Lydia had no children,
she has no significance for infant baptism either. To read infants into the
text thus goes contrary to the context (and to read the baptism of adults into
the text, apart from their conversion, goes contrary to paedobaptist practice,
as examined below).
C) With respect to the Philippian
jailer's household (Acts 16:33), note that in the preceding verse (v. 32),
the entire household heard the message of the gospel: "Then they spoke the
word of the Lord to him and to all the others in the house." Interpreters
are divided on how to interpret the Greek singular participle of the succeeding
verse (v. 34): did the jailer rejoice with his whole house, having believed in
God? (paedobaptist interpretation), or did the jailer rejoice, having believed
in God with his whole house (baptist interpretation)? Note that even if
the paedobaptist interpretation is taken (which is quite unnecessary), it
implies the baptist view that the entire household believed. For it
would be exceeding strange if (1) the whole household heard the gospel, (2) the
jailer believed the gospel but the others rejected it, and (3) the whole
household rejoiced that the head of the household believed while they themselves
rejected the same message! Only the baptist view avoids such absurdity.
"Taken at its face value, the account in Acts sets before us a hearing,
believing, rejoicing household that received baptism."(7)
D) With respect to Stephanas'
household (1 Corinthians 1:16), Paul does indeed state that he baptized the
household of Stephanas. But he also informs us "that the household
of Stephanas were the first converts [aparchê, firstfruits] in Achaia,
and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints" (1
Corinthians 16:15). This is positive evidence that a household conversion
occurred, and not merely a household baptism. As Jewett puts it, "When
Paul declares, 'I baptized the house of Stephanas,' and later adds that they
'set themselves to minister to the saints,' . . . how plausible is it to make
the circle of his meaning larger in the one instance than in the other? 'I
baptized all the house of Stephanas, of which some have
ministered to the saints' is the way we should have to understand the apostle
if we are to see clear evidence for infant baptism in this passage. Such an
interpretation is possible, but it is a rather thin thread on which to hang the
practice of bringing infants to baptism."(8)
There is a tendency for
paedobaptists to base their theory of baptism upon a strict principle of
Old Testament continuity, and then to violate that very principle in their practice
of baptism, by "smuggling in" discontinuities not warranted by
the text of Scripture, but required if insoluble difficulties in the practice
of infant baptism are to be avoided. This dilemma is to be expected, for once
the teaching of the Word of God is misinterpreted as to our duty,
inconsistencies are bound to be revealed in our practice.
1) Paedobaptists look
for a warrant of faith in the parents of those to be baptized. On the one hand, paedobaptists
claim that their practice is mandated by the command given to Abraham in
Genesis 17. And yet paedobaptists will not baptize an infant unless the
parent(s) give a credible profession of faith. Thus they baptize infants on different
grounds than circumcision was mandated! A warrant of faith in the parents was never
required in the Old Testament. "Every male among you shall be
circumcised" (Genesis 17:12), period. In fact, in the Old Testament, if
anyone was physically descended from Abraham, he had no right not to be
circumcised! Never in the darkest days of the judges or of the canonical
prophets was the privilege of circumcision revoked due to the people's
apostasy.
Any attempt to read the Old
Testament as if a profession of faith in the parents was required for the
circumcision of their offspring is clearly a species of
"Christianizing" eisegesis, a reading of the Old as if it were
the New. When Abraham was required to circumcise his (hundreds of) servants
(Genesis 17:27) and their offspring, neither he nor God required a personal
profession of faith of any of them. Rather, "every male among you shall be
circumcised," period. When the people of God crossed the Jordan River
under Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day (Joshua 5:2-3).
A profession of faith in the God of Abraham could not possibly have been
required of each and every one of them. Again, "every male among you shall
be circumcised," period.
It may objected that the
very fact that these parents remained within the covenant community
shows an implicit profession of faith on their part. That is, by not living an
outwardly immoral life, they were not cut off from the covenant community. But
this objection could not apply to the hundreds of males in Abraham's household,
since at that time the covenant community was less than a day old, and there
was no time to "apostatize" by an outwardly immoral life. Indeed,
paedobaptists justify the practice of infant baptism with respect to the Abrahamic
(not the Mosaic) covenant. In other words, the life of the parents could not
possibly have been evaluated by the stipulations of the Mosaic law during the
hundreds of years between Abraham and Moses, for the Mosaic law had not yet
been given. There was thus no possibility of "excommunication"
between Abraham and Moses. Once again, the criterion is physical descent from
Abraham, and not the faith of the parents. Besides, since when does an
outwardly moral life substitute for a profession of faith? Would paedobaptists
baptize longtime visitors to their churches, simply because such individuals
lived an outwardly moral life? The two are simply not the same.
2) Paedobaptists do not
bring their little children to the covenant meal.(9) This is significant, because
the replacement of the Passover Meal (Old Covenant) with the Lord's Supper (New
Covenant) as the covenant meal, is even more explicitly stated in the
New Testament than the alleged replacement of circumcision with baptism as the
covenant sign. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper while he was sharing the
Passover meal with his disciples (Matthew 26:17-30; cf. Mark 14:12-26; Luke
22:7-30). And under the Old Covenant, all in the household were invited
to participate in the covenant meal. "Each man is to take a lamb for his
family, one for each household" (Exodus 12:3). No warrant of faith in the
recipients of the Passover meal was required. "You are to determine the
amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat"
(Exodus 12:4), not in accordance with their profession of faith!
In order to justify their
failure to bring their little children to the covenant meal, paedobaptists
appeal to the strictures of 1 Corinthians 11:28-29, 31, wherein "a man
ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord
eats and drinks judgment on himself . . . if we judged ourselves, we would not
come under judgment." But baptists reply that the paedobaptist
interpretation of this stricture is wholly inconsistent with their
interpretation of various passages concerning baptism. When confronted
with texts concerning the necessity of faith and repentance prior to baptism
(Acts 2:38; Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16), paedobaptists reply that such texts
"obviously" are intended for adults only and not for all. But when
they come to 1 Corinthians 11:28-29, paedobaptists arbitrarily reverse their
hermeneutic and reply that such a text "obviously" is intended
for all and not for adults only! Could it be that paedobaptists are
accommodating their interpretation of Scripture to their previously-accepted
practice, rather than judging their practice by means of Scripture?
Indeed, baptists also reply
that this paedobaptist recognition of a significant discontinuity
between the recipients of the sacraments under the Old and New Covenants only
proves the baptist point: due to the progress of redemptive history, in the
administration of the New Covenant the signs and seals of the covenant are for believers
only. Paedobaptists accept this with respect to communion, but not with
respect to baptism. They are "halfway baptists," halfway down the
road to a baptist understanding of the New Covenant.
In order to justify their
failure to bring their little children to the covenant meal, paedobaptists also
appeal to the alleged "active" nature of the Lord's Supper, as
opposed to the "passive" nature of baptism. But apart from Scriptural
warrant, this distinction seems to be an arbitrary artifice designed to
preserve the paedobaptist practice of baptizing (passive) babies, while only
communicating (active) adults.
3) Paedobaptists do not
baptize entire households. This is inconsistent with their "oikos formula" interpretation
of the household baptisms in Acts, by which they see entire households being
baptized indiscriminately upon the conversion of the head of the household. In
order to justify their failure to baptize spouses, adult children, and
household servants upon the conversion of the head of the household,
paedobaptists appeal to at least three considerations.
A) The greater
spirituality of the New Covenant. But this introduces the very type of
"discontinuity without Scriptural warrant" that they accuse the
baptists of affirming. Why would the "greater spirituality" include
the babies but exclude the spouses and older children?
B) Cultural
considerations. Paedobaptists recognize that it would be unacceptable in
our culture to practice "coerced baptisms" on these adults. But since
when should cultural considerations be allowed to overturn apostolic
example, especially when we are talking about the explicit command of
God (Genesis 17, "every male among you shall be circumcised)?
C) A supposed confession
of faith on the part of the spouse and/or other adults in the household.
But this is to do the very thing paedobaptists accuse the baptists of doing:
reading into the household baptisms what is not explicitly there in the text.
4) Paedobaptists do not
practice the "halfway covenant." That is, if the children of covenant members
are also in the covenant, then are the children of these covenant
members also in the covenant? That is, if God has "children"
(believers) and "grandchildren" (believers' children), why may he not
have "great-grandchildren" (believers' children's children), who by
virtue of their descent from covenant members are also in the covenant? Thus,
practically speaking, why not baptize the children of covenant children, even
if those covenant children have never made a profession of saving faith? To do
so was the practice with respect to circumcision under the Old Covenant. Why is
it not the practice of paedobaptists under the New, given their principle of
strict continuity with the Old Testament?
This "halfway
covenant" controversy is no abstract speculation. It was a deep practical
crisis for paedobaptists in New England (1634-1828), who were forced to develop
several contradictory lines of response to a fundamental practical absurdity
which their paedobaptist theology raised. Note how it was not an
absurdity under the Old Covenant: "every male among you shall be
circumcised," period (Genesis 17:12-14). Also note how it is not an
absurdity if the covenant signs are restricted to those who profess saving
faith in Jesus Christ (i.e. if the baptist view is adopted).
Some may ask, "Why end
your booklet by critiquing a series of emotionally-driven, ad hominem
arguments for infant baptism? No respectable theologian would indulge in
this kind of tugging of the heartstrings, as a substitute for genuine biblical
argument!" Perhaps not, but otherwise respectable seminary students, professors,
and their wives do, if my personal experience is any rule! And as long as these
kinds of questions are repeatedly asked--informally yet forcefully--of baptist
seminary students, church members and pastors, a response needs to be at hand.
1) "Are you saying
my covenant children aren't 'special'?" Baptists rightly respond with the words of
Paul: "Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"
(Romans 9:13). Thus is God's testimony concerning these "covenant
children." God may not love your "covenant children" any more or
less than the general mass of unregenerate mankind. Your only assurance
of God's love for them is if they specifically repent and believe the gospel,
thus showing themselves to be chosen and loved by him from eternity. Any other
view is pure presumption without Scriptural warrant. Isaac would have been
presumptuous to write a letter to his newborn Esau in which he stated:
"Dearest Esau, child of the covenant: Not only do I love you, but more
importantly, God loves you as well!" Such a letter would have been
contrary to Christian responsibility, and the God-ordained facts.(10)
2) "Are you saying
that God won't hear the prayers of my four-year old covenant child?" Baptists rightly respond that God
will always hear a prayer for conversion from anyone, young or old. God
will also hear and answer any prayer which issues from a sincere, renewed
heart. Of course, not all covenant children have sincere, renewed hearts
(Ishmael? Esau? the sons of Korah? Eli's sons?). Therefore, parents can have
confidence that God hears the prayers of their children to the extent that they
have confidence that their children have renewed hearts, or that their children
are praying for conversion. Besides, what has this to do with infant baptism?
Did the covenant with Abraham involve a "promise" to hear the prayers
of all the descendants of Abraham, simply because they were his descendants? Do
we adopt infant baptism because it allows us to say comforting things about our
children?
3) "How dare you
baptists separate the children from their own parents in the covenant
community! They are your own flesh and blood!" But paedobaptists do not include the spouse
in the covenant community! And yet the term "flesh and blood" is more
reminiscent of the marriage relationship than the parent-child
relationship! "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
Thus children are not "separated" any more from their parents on the
baptist view, than the unbelieving spouse is "separated" from his or
her spouse on the paedobaptist view. This question seems to imply that when
baptist parents go to church, they leave their kids in the parking lot. Baptist
parents also bring their children under the influence of preaching,
catechizing, and family instruction. So what's the point?
4) "Now you say, as
part of your so-called 'gospel,' that my children aren't in the covenant, and
cannot receive the covenant sign. Is that 'good news'? No!" This kind of argument, inferring
from a general notion of "expanded privileges" under the New Covenant
a specific application to infant privileges, should have about as much force as
the following pseudo-argument of a paedo-communionist to most paedobaptists:
"You won't let my children partake of the covenant meal (Lord's
Supper)? You are revoking the privileges they had under the Old Covenant with
respect to the Passover! Is that 'good news'?" Thus, there is no
paedobaptist "argument from expanded privilege" against the revoking
of baptismal privileges for infants that cannot also be made for infant
communion. Arguments like this have about as much force as any Jewish
objection to the passing away of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. A
much more relevant question would be: "What does God require of me under
the New Covenant?" or "Who is in the New
Covenant?"
By now it is clear that the
traditional arguments for paedobaptism, including the widely-accepted
"Reformed argument from the covenant of grace," are greatly mistaken.
As was stated at the outset, the traditionally Reformed version of covenant
theology needs to be subjected to a more careful biblical scrutiny.
Paedobaptists commit a fundamental and therefore fatal hermeneutical error with
respect to the historical administrations of the covenant of grace. In doing
so, they overlook significant discontinuities in the meaning and function of
the covenant signs, misuse key biblical texts, raise insoluble but inevitable
difficulties for their practice of paedobaptism, and (at times) make a
degrading and unworthy sentimentalism masquerade in the place of genuine
Scriptural argument.
Such errors are serious,
and ought to give rise to serious pastoral (not merely academic) concern. For
the paedobaptist error strikes at the heart of God's present covenantal
dealings with his people, "on whom the fulfillment of the ages has
come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). If the New Testament church is Old Testament
Israel come of age (Galatians 4:1-7)--Israel renewed and transformed by the
gracious purpose and power of God--then we dare not include within that
covenant community individuals concerning whom we have little or no evidence
are actually in covenant with God. The witness of the Old and New Testaments
are united on this point: God's New Covenant people actually know the
Lord, have their sins forgiven, and have the law of God written on their
hearts. And as far as is humanly possible, in subjection to the standards of
the Word and in humble dependence upon God, this conception of the church and
of its membership must be maintained and pursued. To do otherwise, to embrace
confusion on so vital a point, will bring and has undoubtedly brought an
increase of spiritual self-deception among those who profess the name of
Christ.(11)
1 For the purposes of this paper, the
terms 'infant baptism' and 'paedobaptism' will be used interchangeably.
2 Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1978.
3 Rather than reading the Old
Testament in light of the New, which is the proper hermeneutic accepted
by both baptists and paedobaptists, but forgotten by paedobaptists at this
point. My terminology of "Christianizing" and "Judaizing"
is taken from Jewett (pp. 91-93).
4 Jewett, p. 122.
5 For a more detailed discussion of 1
Corinthians 7:14, see the article by Stan Reeves at http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html.
(offsite link)
6 Jewett, p. 49.
7 Jewett, p. 50.
8 Jewett, p. 50.
9 Paedocommunionists obviously do,
but they are a minority among paedobaptists. And since they simply argue for an
expanded level of "covenant privileges" for their infants, the
arguments already given against infant covenant membership apply equally to
them.
10 I am talking, of course, about
God¼s special, covenant love to his own, not his general love of benevolence to
all his creatures.
11 For further references and
supporting information, see the FAQ on the
Reformed Baptist View of Baptism. (offsite link)