There are, as
Booth recognizes, few doctrinal subjects that have divided Christians more than
questions over the sacraments.[1] Above other questions is the one concerning
the subjects of baptism. On this point,
the camps are neatly divided into two.
There are the paedobaptists, who believe that the children of covenant believers
should enjoy the covenant’s sacrament of baptism and membership in the
church. Against the paedobaptists stand
the credobaptists, who believe that only those that make a viable profession of
faith in Christ’s gospel are qualified to partake of baptism. Since the time of the Reformation, this issue
has driven a polemical wedge between godly evangelicals, representing both
camps.
During the Reformation, the early
credobaptist, the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier, rhetorically asked in a
letter, “Why is it that we dispute so fiercely over this ‘sign’?” According to him, it is because, “The sign is
assuredly a ‘symbol’ [of faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, which] should
be valued more seriously than the sign itself.”[2]
The controversial passion that the early
credobaptists called ‘fierce’ was referred to as ‘frenzied’ and ‘fury’ by their
opponents. Calvin writes, “But since, in
this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise,
great disturbances in the Church on account of paedobaptism, I cannot avoid
here…adding something to restrain their fury.”[3] Although the temper and tone of this
doctrinal divide has waned much in the past 400 years of conversation, the
debate itself has not.
Because
the debate remains, this essay is intended to contribute to that conversation,
regarding the question of infant baptism.
This essay will argue that the paedobaptist position is both
scripturally and theologically sound; therefore, infants of believers should
receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.
This conclusion will be premised on three lines of reasoning. First, concomitant with the Abrahamic
covenant, a primary administration of the covenant of grace, YHWH commanded
that all male infants of covenanted parents should receive the sign of the
covenant, circumcision. Secondly, within
the covenant of grace there is great continuity and unity regarding the people
of God, which is ultimately one throughout redemptive history. Finally, though the external sign of covenant
membership has been modified from circumcision to baptism, there is no evidence
in Scripture that the infants’ right to be given this sign has been abrogated
or otherwise repealed.[4] Despite its strengths, this argument is not
impenetrable. So, throughout the essay
an open ear will be given to the deft defenders of credobaptism and their
objections to this thesis.
The
Inclusion of Infants in the Covenant of Grace
God
created humanity for fellowship with himself and one another. Because the ontological distance between God
and man is so great, fellowship with God requires tremendous condescension on
his part, which he was pleased to express by way of covenant.[5] “The first covenant made with man was a
covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his
posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”[6] Our first parents fell from their blessed
estate and plunged themselves and their posterity into ruin, breaking the
covenant with God and consequently true fellowship with him. Man having broken the covenant of works, God instituted
a second, the covenant of grace. “God
having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to
everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of
the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by
a Redeemer.”[7] The first promise of the coming Redeemer was
given right after the fall in Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium, wherein God promised to bring about One from the
seed of the woman, who would crush the power of Satan and liberate humanity
from the dominion of darkness.
Beginning in Genesis
12, YHWH calls one man, Abram, through whom he would revisit the all nations in
blessings and grace. This crucial
juncture in redemptive history culminated in what is known as the Abrahamic
covenant, a pivotal movement in the outworking of the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant is the foundation of
salvation history; it is the promise
of the New Testament’s fulfillments. In Genesis 17:1—16, we learn that the sign
(or “token,” 17:11 KJV) and
seal (Rom 4:11) of the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace was
circumcision. It was through this
covenant that YHWH would bless “all nations” (cf. Gen 12:1—3; 18:18; 22:17—18).[8]
Regarding this
sign, circumcision, it was to be administered to every male infant in the covenant head’s household, and that on the
eighth day (17:10—13). This covenant was
perpetual, being called an “everlasting covenant” (vv. 7, 13, 19). Failure to receive the sign of circumcision
resulted in judgment. “[T]hat soul shall
be cut off from his people (i.e., the covenant community); he has broken my
covenant” (v. 14). Accordingly, Abraham
was immediately circumcised, as was thirteen year old Ishmael (vv. 24—26). After the son of promise, Isaac, was born, he
too was circumcised on the eighth day (21:4).
The paedobaptist’s position rests in large
part on the correspondence between circumcision and baptism as being signs of
the covenant of grace. Bromiley argues, “Even
a cursory reading of the entire Bible shows clearly enough that the so-called
sacraments instituted by Christ, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, correspond in a
very striking way to the two covenantal signs of the Old Testament, the Lord’s
Supper to the Passover and baptism to circumcision.”[9]
If circumcision and baptism correspond
sufficiently, and covenant children were to receive the former, then this
provides the God-instituted grounds for them to receive the latter.
The
counter-argument to the above, represented by Wright, is that the paedobaptist
“overspiritualizes circumcision.”[10] Wright continues, “Circumcision was a
physical marker of ethnic Israel identifying them as distinct from other
nations.”[11] Thus, he concludes, “the parallel between
physical circumcision and Christian baptism fails.”[12] This argument, however, swings on a
reductionistic view of circumcision. The
credobaptist neglects the Old Testament’s spiritual intent and essence of the
sign of circumcision and a central purpose of the sacrament of baptism.
Despite the
literal, physical rite of the sign, circumcision itself pointed to a deeper,
metaphorical meaning. “The Israelites
are instructed in Deuteronomy 10:16 to circumcise their hearts as a spiritual
response to God’s choice of them as his (corporate) people.”[13] Likewise, Deuteronomy 30:6 promises that in
the postexilic period, YHWH will circumcise Israel’s hearts and enable them to
love him. Conversely, an “uncircumcised
heart” is indicated by disregarding YHWH’s covenant law (Lev 26:41; cf. 19:23). Jeremiah 9:25, 26 emphasizes that the
uncircumcised heart actually reckons one’s physical mark as uncircumcised (cf. 4:4; 6:10). Lastly, entrance into Ezekiel’s
eschatological temple requires one to be circumcised in “flesh” and “heart” (44:9). Under the Old administration, “Heart
commitment (i.e., faith) is a necessity, not an option.”[14] The spiritual trajectory and essence of
circumcision cannot be ignored (for NT treatment, see Rom 2:25—29; 4:11; Eph
2:11; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11, 12).
Moreover, one
central purpose of baptism, according to the paedobaptist confessions,
corresponds well with the purpose of circumcision as making God’s people
distinct from the nations. For example,
the Westminster Confession of Faith reads,
regarding the New Testament sacraments, are also intended, like circumcision in
the Old, “to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church
and the rest of the world.”[15] In fact, all the Reformed confessions “speak
with one voice about baptism as a formal consecration, or setting apart, of
covenant children from unbelievers outside the community.”[16] Granting these and other points, Calvin
rightly concludes, “there is no difference in the internal meaning (of
circumcision and baptism)…Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been
substituted for circumcision and performs the same office.”[17] Therefore, the credobaptist’s charge that
circumcision and baptism fail to have the necessary correspondence itself fails
to do justice to the whole of Scripture on the matter.
The
Continuity of the Covenant(s)
Prior to the
question of whether or not infants should be baptized is the question over
hermeneutics. “How we should interpret
the Bible is at the very heart of the baptism debate.”[18] The Reformed or covenantal method of interpretation
sees a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments, with the New
flowing out of the Old and building on its foundation.[19] According to Bromiley, “We must not be misled
at this point by any form of rationalistic or evangelical dissection of the
Bible (i.e., dispensationalism). Taught
by our Lord and the New Testament authors, the church has maintained across the
centuries a testimony to the unity of the
scripture.”[20] The covenantal hermeneutic, stressing the
unity rather than disunity of Scripture and the covenants, is the proving
ground for the paedobaptist position.
Reading revelation in terms of its unity leads
to understanding the covenants, through which God revealed himself, in
continuity. The continuity of God’s
covenantal administrations has, as mentioned above, been commonly called the
covenant of grace. The covenant of grace
is that unifying thread that binds the diversity of the various covenantal
administrations.
Wellum raises some
relatively serious concerns about the continuity of Scripture and the concept
of the covenant of grace.[21] In as much as paedobaptism rests primarily on
the premise of continuity, Wellum admits that placing stress on the
“discontinuity at the structural level between the old and new covenant…is at
the heart of the credobaptist position.”[22] Wellum complains that, “in reality, the
‘covenant of grace’ is a comprehensive theological
category, not a biblical one.”[23] Rather, Scripture speaks in terms of a plurality of covenants (e.g. Gal 4:24;
Eph 2:12; Heb 8:7—13).[24] Is the covenantal continuity required to
buttress the so-called covenant of grace actually revealed in Scripture? Many believe it is.
One need not be
overly affectionate to the nomenclature of “the covenant of grace.”[25] If we choose to use thoroughly biblical
terms, the covenant of grace is synonymous with “the everlasting covenant.” The everlasting covenant, which was manifest
in the progressive diversity of the various covenant administrations throughout
redemptive history, is that revealed term
that signifies the ultimate continuity needed for the paedobaptist position.
The penultimate
covenants, recognized by both sides of the debate, are the Noahic, Abrahamic,
Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant in Christ. Scripture presents the everlasting covenant
as the ultimate tie that binds each of these covenant administrations
together. Beginning with Noah, after
promising the sign of the “bow…in the cloud,” God vows an “everlasting
covenant” with him, as representative head of the new creation, this side of
the deluge (Gen 9:16). As already
mentioned, three times in Genesis 17, after giving the covenant sign of
circumcision to Abraham, YHWH refers to this as a sign as signifying the
“everlasting covenant” (vv. 7, 13, 19).
In Leviticus 24:8, the presentation of the showbread served as a
perpetual token of the “everlasting covenant” to Israel.
Both 1 Chronicles
16:17 and Psalm 105:10 highlight the continuity between YHWH’s covenant with
Abraham and that with Israel, mediated through Moses.
O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen
ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be
ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; even of the covenant which he made
with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob
for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant (1 Chron 16:13—17 // Ps 105:6—10 KJV).
Here we perceive a nearly seamless continuity in what
Wellum would demand is a plurality of covenants, that is, a discontinuity.
Likewise,
the prophets promise the eschatological fulfillment of the everlasting covenant
in the coming messianic age. Isaiah
55:3, for instance, has YHWH promising, “I will make an everlasting covenant
with you, even the sure mercies of David” (cf. Jer 32:40; Eze 16:60; 37:26,
27). In Acts 13, Paul interprets Jesus’
resurrection as the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers, Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 32, 33), which was premised on Jesus being given “the
sure mercies of David,” which is the everlasting covenant (v. 34; cf. Rom
15:8). Hebrews 13:20 speaks clearer yet,
stating, “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant…” Jesus is the Subject, the
Object, and the Terminus of the singular purpose and plan of God, the
everlasting covenant.
Therefore,
even if the term ‘covenant of grace’ is side-stepped, the content signified by
it cannot be. The covenantal continuity
necessary for the supporting premise of the paedobaptist position survives
Wellum’s incredulity and criticism.
The Sound of
Silence
An
argument from silence can be dangerous and fallacious, unless there should be
noise. In Doyle’s suspenseful telling of
Silver Blaze, Sherlock Holmes
unravels the strange case of the dog’s bark in the night. What was strange about it was that the dog did
not bark! A horse was stolen. Suspects were many. Holmes knew that the dog always barked at
strangers, always waking the sleeping hired hands in the barn. Using the rigors of a modus tollens line of reasoning, Holmes inferred “Obviously, the
midnight visitor was someone the dog knew well!”[26]
When
coming to the New Testament, the paedobaptists’ reasoning is similar to
Holmes’. As much as the paedobaptist has
to face the fact that there is no explicit reference of an infant being
baptized,[27]
so too does the credobaptist need to face the utter absence of an abrogation or
repeal of the institution of the covenant to apply the sign of the covenant to
believers’ little ones. Well put was B.
B. Warfield’s reply to Baptist theologian, A. H. Strong. “The argument in a nutshell is this: God
established His church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them
out. He
has nowhere put them out. They are
still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances.”[28]
Chapell touches this point as with a
needle.
The removal of any sign of the covenant from believers’ children would
have been an immense change in practice and concept for Jewish families. It is unthinkable after 2000 years of
covenant family practice (established since Genesis), that a believing Jewish
parent would have known how to interpret a continuing Abrahamic covenant that
excluded administering the sign of the covenant to children…the apostles
frequently record households being baptized after the head of the home believes
in Christ. Consider how such a household
head would have reacted when others in the household (including servants and
resident relatives) were baptized on the basis of his faith while that man’s
own children were denied the covenant sign.
The absence of a command to prohibit administering the sign of the
covenant to children after 2000 years of such practice weighs significantly
against arguments that the apostles only wanted those able to profess their
faith to be baptized.[29]
Therefore,
the sound of silence puts an equal amount of explicative burden on the
credobaptist as it does the paedobaptist.
The case, in part, for infant baptism from the New Testament is
silence. But silence is a strong
argument when there should be a lot noise.
Since infants were to be granted the
sign of the covenant and membership in the covenant community from the
foundational expression of the covenant; and there is necessary continuity
through the diverse administrative covenants, by means of the commonly called
‘covenant of grace’; and there is silence in the New Testament, regarding any
repeal of the sign institution, we may, in sum, conclude that the paedobaptist
position is both scripturally and theological sound. Let us, then, “Forbid them not” (Mk 10:14).
Bibliography
Bierma, Lyle D.,
“Infant Baptism in the Reformed Confessions,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg
Strawbridge. Found at www.paedobaptism.com/bierma.doc
(accessed September 17, 2011).
Booth, Robert R.,
Children of the Promise: The Biblical
Case for Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg,
New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1995.
Bromiley,
Geoffery W., Children of Promise: The
Case for Baptizing Infants. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979.
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated
by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.
Chapell, Bryan,
“A Pastor’s Case for Infant Baptism,” in The
Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Found at http://paedobaptism.com/chapell.htm
(accessed on September 15, 2011).
Doyle, Sir Arthur
Conan, The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New york, New York: Barnes & Noble,
2009.
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
Reymond, Robert
L., A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith (2nd Ed.). Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1998.
Schreiner, Thomas
R. & Shawn D. Wright editors, Believer’s
Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, in NAC Studies in Bible and
Theology. Nashville, Tennessee: B &
H Publishing Group, 2006.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow, England: Free Presbyterian
Publications, 1990.
Woodbridge, P.
D., “Circumcision,” in New Dictionary of
Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner,
411—14. Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 2003.
[1]
Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise:
The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1995), 2.
[2]
As cited by Jonathan H. Rainbow, “’Confessor Baptism’: The Baptismal Doctrine
of the Early Anabaptists,” in Believer’s
Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, in NAC Studies in Bible and
Theology, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (Nashville, Tennessee: B
& H Publishing Group, 2006), 206, brackets added for context.
[3]
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing, 2001 [IV:XVI:1]), 529.
[4]
These three “undeniable biblical truths” are barrowed in part from Robert L.
Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 944.
[5] Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow,
England: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1990), [VII:I], 41.
[6]
Ibid., [VII:II], 42. For a concise
yet solid defense of the ‘covenant of works,’ see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 516—518.
[7]
Westminster, The Shorter Catechism,
Q/A 20, 291.
[8]
Noteworthy is the fact that so deeply connected was the sign and the things
signified, that YHWH could say, “This is
my covenant…every man child among you shall be circumcised” (Gen
17:10). Moreover, when Stephen, in Acts
7, is giving his comprehensive summary God redemptive, saving acts, he is able
to use metonymy, calling the covenant made with Abraham and his seed the
“covenant of circumcision” (v. 8).
[9]
Geoffery W. Bromiley, Children of
Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1979), 17.
[10]
Shawn D. Wright, “Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists,” in Believer’s Baptism, 238.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid., 239.
[13]
P. D. Woodbridge, “Circumcision,” in New
Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian
S. Rosner, 411—14 (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 412,
parenthesis added.
[14]
Ibid., parenthesis added.
[15]
Westminster, [XXVII:I], 112.
[16]
Lyle D. Bierma, “Infant Baptism in the Reformed Confessions,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism,
edited by Gregg Strawbridge. (Found at www.paedobaptism.com/bierma.doc
[accessed September 17, 2011]).
[17]
Calvin, Institutes, [IV:XVI:4],
531.
[18]
Robert R. Booth, Children of Promise, 15.
[19]
Ibid., 16—17, op cit.
[20]
Bromiley, Children of Promise, 12—13.
[21]
It should be noted, however, that there are those who are covenant theologians,
yet maintain the credobaptistic view.
See, e.g., Wayne Grudem’s Systematic
Theology.
[22]
Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism, 105.
[23]
Ibid.¸126, italics original. Telling is Wellum’s qualification that to
press this argument to far would deprive us also of the doctrine of the
Trinity!
[24]
Ibid., op cit, italics original.
[25]
The meta-covenant, for lack of better, has been called a number of things. The Westminster
Standards, e.g., simply refer to it as “God’s eternal decree.” Cocceius called it “the counsel of
peace.” Warfield spoke of it in terms of
“the plan of salvation,” and Murray the “inter-trinitarian economy of
salvation. See Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 502.
[26]
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “Silver Blaze” in The
Complete Sherlock Holmes (New york, New York: Barnes & Noble, 2009),
325. The modus tollens (i.e., mode of taking) line of inference is as
follows: If p, then q; not q, therefore, not p. Or, If the thief was a stranger, then the
dog would have barked, waking the help; but the dog did not bark; therefore,
the thief was not a stranger. The
classic argument from silence.
[27]
To this one could respond that there is likewise no explicit instance of or
command to women participating in the Lord’s Supper, yet it is silly to argue
against their participation.
[28]
B. B. Warfield, “The Polemics of Infant Baptism” as cited in Wellum,
“Relationship Between the Covenants,” in Believer’s
Baptism, 101.
[29]
Bryan Chapell, “A Pastor’s Case for Infant Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge
(http://paedobaptism.com/chapell.htm
accessed on September 15, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment