Infant Baptism
There have been a few of us talking about infant baptism, more specifically the reformed view than the catholic view. So i figured i'd put down my views on it and try to offer another view.
here's the pro-paedobaptism site that has most been referenced: click here
to start, i figured i'd address some issues i had with that website. first of all, i'd like to start with the premis that this whole thing is based on. "Thus if baptism replaces cirumcision as the sign and seal of the one covenant of grace then the case for infant baptism can be clearly demonstrated from a number of texts, since while the sign may change, there is no biblical evidence that the thing signified changes." This whole argument is born from a view that isn't even biblically backed in the Bible. The infant baptism view would say that infant baptism is in direct continuity with the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament. There are a few problems with that. The first is that circumcision was not a spiritual sign but a physical sign connecting the person to a physical body. New Testament baptism is a spiritual sign connecting one to a spiritual body. As we know, Israel was very rebellious and there were millions of Jews who have lived in opposition to God and now are in Hell. Circumcision just connected the people to the physical body that God had made a covenant with. it didn't have any spiritual implications. Men were justified by faith in the Old Testament, just as they are today (Habakkuk).
the new covenant, described in Jeremiah 31:34 is a new system where everyone included will know God. Under the old covenant, it was with a physical nation, but the new covenant is with an invisible body of believers, meaning not a tangible body. babies cannot be apart of the new covenant because they do not have the ability to have faith or believe.
another reason i do not believe that baptism is a continuation of circumcision is because it is NO WHERE said to be in the New Testament. Acts 15 and Galatians has been brought up, but wouldn't that be the perfect time to say to the Judaizers 'Hey! you don't have to do that anymore! We don't have to be circumcised anymore because it has been replaced with baptism!' but that isn't said anywhere. though the view for infant baptism says that it has biblical support, i just don't see it. instead, they more draw from the fact that it 'isn't condemned'. but at the end of the argument, the Bible just doesn't support or directly speak about infant baptism. It didn't even take place in the early church until the 2nd or 3rd century.
supporters of infant baptism would say that when it speaks of houses believing and be baptized (Acts 10, 16, 18, I Corinthains with Lydia and Stephanas) they assume that children had to be apart of that. but we know that the all who believed and the all who were baptized would have to be the same people and we also know that infants are incapable of belief and incapable of repentance. Two interesting things about that list, too. Lydia was probably a single lady with no husband and then in I Corinthians when it speaks of Stephanas it says 'All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints.' so if infants were baptized, they would have to be included in those who were devoted to the ministry of the saints, and that is obviously impossible because infants are incapable of devoting themselves to the ministry of the saints.
another reason i don't believe in infant baptism is because i believe that the biblical form of baptism is a believer's baptism. i believe baptism is a commanded ordinance for those who are confessing Christians to outwardly proclaim an inward change. in all of those instances in Acts, believing was followed by being baptized. it was their way of outwardly proclaim their faith. it is an act reserved only for those who have confessed with their tongues and believed in the hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord.
a final closing note. pro-paedobaptism believers would say that I Corinthians 7:12-14 speaks to favoring infant baptism, saying a family is sanctified by a spouse that believes when the other spouse does not. a problem with this is that infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the passage! all it is speaking of is that the family is blessed because they are living with a persevering Christian who is blessed by God. they get the spillover blessing from God.
the reformation produced a lot of good things, but it also didn't go far enough in some areas, as you had hundreds of churches who were suddenly out on the their own and still held to some catholic views and practices. instead of holding to traditional practices, we should look solely to the Bible for our authority and for our spiritual practices.
posted by Tim Costine @ 11:19 AM
28 comments
28 Comments:
Tim,
Some decent thoughts here. But let me offer this: I think some fo your opposition stems from a basic misunderstanding (well, at least in my opinion it is a misunderstanding). While circumcision was indeed a physical act, it was a spiritual sign. Consider this: First and foremost, it was commanded by God as a sign of the Covenant (Gen 17:11). Notice how God doesn't simply say that all Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised, but that He was making the COVENANT with all Abraham's descendents. If the covenant was made with them, it only stands to reason that they bear the sign. Circumcision identified the participant with God, not a nation. When God promised Abraham descendants and to make him the father of a great nation, He required Abraham to make a blood offering (Gen 16:7-11), not to be circumcised. Circumcision was a sign of covenant, not geneology. You rightly said that there were millions of Jews that were rebellious and are now in Hell. But, don't forget that covenants include blessings AND curses. Condemnation is a result of breaking the covenant. And here's the most important thing: the covenant that circumcision signified was not an isolated agreement between God and Abraham, it was the very covenant of Grace that we are saved under today. The covenant of Grace, in which Christ fufilled the covenant of Works promised life for obedience, was instituted immediately after the covenant of Works was broken in the Garden. There was never any other way for man to be saved. Circumcision, for this reason, while not salvific in function, did indeed have spiritual implications in that it was a sign of covenant, not heredity, and the participant was bound to either obey God and know His blessing, or rebell against Him and know His curses.
Great discussion! I see more in your post that I would love to continue talking to you about, so if you want my input for consideration, let me know!
Shalom,
Ian
Oh man, I totally didn't know this discussion was going on. I will have to read that page. I pretty much agree with Tim, and aren't most reformed people "covenant" as well? I like reformed stuff on the gospel- but they believe some other stuff as well that I'm not sure the bible teaches.
Which Ian is this?
"Reformed" stuff on the gospel generally stems from a covenantal understanding of redemptive history, so it is kind of hard to separate the two. Very basically, covenantal theology is based on three succesive covenants: the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. The covenant of redemption was an inter-trinitarian covenant made between God the father and Christ the Son in which Christ agrees, before the foundation of the world, that He would become the redeemer for all mankind, for all time. This is the foundation for all other covenants. After this came the covenant of works, instituted by God with Adam, in which life was promised for perfect obedience. Obviously that was broken by Adam. After the fall in Eden, the covenant of Grace was insitituted. In this covenant, Christ fufilled the covenant of works for us, fufilled His covenant with the Father, and extended life to all those that believe in Him. As you can see, this was the plan all along as Christ was covenanted with the Father to be the redeemer before man was created. Each successive covenant builds from the one before it. All the smaller covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) were individual applications of the covenant of Grace as salvation has always been and always will be through faith in the Messiah.
What kind of covenantal stuff are you not sure the Bible teaches? Maybe I can help shed some light....
By the way, this is Ian Graves. It so great to be conversing with you guys!
Hey Ian,
Great to hear from you! Tell Michelle I said, "Hi!"
Your reasoning is well put, but I'd rather look at verses (within their context) and determine their primary meaning to their original audience.
jason, from what i understand, to say today that you are reformed in your theology generally means you would hold to a covenant theology position. that doesn't mean that covenant theologians would say they are the only people following in the footsteps of the reforms, that's the just the label that has been given to them/adopted by them.
i can see that this coversation will more go to a dispensational vs covenant theology. if you'd like to read up on dispensational theology, read 'There Really Is a Difference' by Renald Showers. he lays it out well and doesn't make it too confusing. as far as covenant theology goes, maybe Ian could reccommend a good book from that perspective. Stuff by Berkhof, Van Til, or Hodge.
Jay,
You're right in that the "reformed" label, or whatever you want ot call it, stems from the theology of the reformers, but they were largely covenantal. John Knox was a key player in the Scottish Reformation and the revolt against the crown. His, and the Scottish Covenanters, whole thing was Christ's crown rights due Him through covenant. There may be some exceptions, but covenant and reformed theologies tend to go hand in hand. The Reformation was much more than simply anti-Catholicism.
The name "Presbyterian" refers simply to the structure of government of the denomination.There are certainly Presbyterian churches out there that are neither reformed nor covenantal.
Don't read Van Til. Well, read him, he's great, but not if you want to simply get a feel for covenantal/reformed theology. His insights are wonderful, but can lead to headaches, even for long time reformers. Very deep.
Geerhardaus Vos has some great stuff (his Biblical Theology is wonderful), of course Calvin's Institutes. Let me think a bit about a good, compact book on the reformed and covenantal teachings and I'll let everyone know. I'm at work right now (I know, I'm a bad boy, but this BLOG stuff is addicting. That and I'm on break.)so I don't really have a lot of time to think about it right now.
Ian
should we preach the word of God to all who seeks it? or only people we aprove of?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
exactly. certain people still need this lesson learned
The person who has heard is ultimately accountable to God, not to the one he originally heard from. If you want to know what God has to say, read His Word. God is the one you need to be focused on, not His messengers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for clearing the "reformed" and "covenant" thing. I love "reformed" doctrine with the aspect of the gospel- mainly calvinistic and God centered- but I found out when I went to a "reformed" church that usually they are "covenant" too. On reformed church I started going to in WV turned out to be post-millienalist- is this just this church are are most "reformed" post-mil/ extreme preterest- I hope not. Another example- I love everything John Piper has written and like Sproul too- love their stuff on the gospel- but from what I understand they are "covenant" as well.
Almost through most of that paper- I will hopefully spend some time at home this afternoon and write some stuff on it to put on my blog.
Oh- and the Shower's book is great- good for of course seeing the difference in Covenant vs. dispensational- as well as whole Bible big picture.
Even among reformed, covenantal churches there are debates about such topics as preterism, millenialism, and even infant baptism. Infant communion has been a hot topic in the recent past. One thing that should be recognized, however, is that a reformed gospel is covenantal. Reformed thinking sees the entirety of scripture as redemptive history, i.e., all scripture works together harmoniously as God's progressive revelation of the Covenant of Grace (salvation through faith in the Messiah), and Christ's fufillment of it. Dispensationalism differs from this in that it interprets scripture to say that God dealt differently with different people at different times. If I recall correctly, there are as many as 9 dispensations in classic dispensationalism.
Let me ask, what are some specifics about covenant theology that you find troubling?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
keith,
i've asked you repeatedly to refrain from writing on this blog and you continue to refuse my desires. i have made everyone on this blog aware of you so you can't try to turn them against me. if you continue to leave messages i will have to make it so you could never leave a message and that would be an inconvenience. so stop now or i'll make you stop later.
oooooooooo I'm so so scared! you may fool everyone else but God know the truth. he knows you refuse top reach to me and your totally hateful and selective. screw you Tim. You can say all you want, the fact is God tells us to preach to everyone. and bu you not letting me ask you bible questions isb eing selective. you cant deny the facts. you can say whatever you want the fact is you and your church have been hateful to me, and your selective. God knows that you and your church have totally rejected me and are selective. Why I cant just ask bible questions is beyond me. and know what I dont care about you or your friends or whatever. I used to respect you and think you were a true christian but you lost that. you can babble all you want I know the truth about you and your church. as christians we are to love each other and not bes elective just because you have a problem with sombody. the fact is you are selective. you can deny it all you want, God knows the truth. You dont fool me for a second.
also dont tell people lies about me. I am a good person and I am a true christian. I am not crazy or insane or evil like you think. And to think I almost fell in your trap and became protestant. You put down the catholic church continuasly yet you yourself and your church refuse to preach to me and you are selective. WHat a fucking hypocrate. Also I dont give a damn about your convinence. You didnt give ad amn about me and how you have hurt me and how your church has done to me and totally selective so fuck you and your convience. do whatever you want I dont fucking care.
I have hesitated in doing this, as I know this is not my argument (or whatever you want to call it), but I am convicted to say the following:
No amount of preaching will change a heart. It is not the persistance of the messenger but the grace of God that transforms a man. You have heard the gospel preached faithfully through Tim and others. If you continue to seek out and demand the preaching of the gospel not for the glory of God, but to selfishly satisfy your own ego or alieve your own insecurities, then you are calling upon yourself wrath and damnation from the Lord. Do not be fooled, God will not be mocked.
What's all this fuss about play-doh-baptism? Why anyone would stick there head in a bucket of child's clay is beyond me and...
ohhhh.. PAEDO baptism. Riiight. OK. I can talk about that, too.
Tim, Beth- Read Doug Wilson's "To a Thousand Generations". It's about paedobaptism, but it does a great job of explaining covenant theology as well.
This is a subject I was pretty agnostic about- didn't know enough about it and didn't really care much either way, but after reading that book I'm convinced that paedobaptism is the biblical model.
Matt- who can't stay in the covenantal closet too much longer
Hee, hee....
Matt! You can't escape the covie blood that runs in your veins! So, why aren't your kids wet yet?
"To a Thousand Generations" is a great book. Also, try "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" by Greg Strawbridge.
Ian
Matt,
If you leave FBC before I get Connor in my SS class I will haunt you! Every Sunday his enthusiasm and desire to learn and talk about his most recent discoveries just makes my week. Last week, leaning against the table as we "shot the breeze", he told me NEXT time I go to Egypt he would like me to take him along. I told him maybe someday when he gets older (and my mo-in-law wins the lottery - I don't play...but do accept legacies). Then I told him he should talk your Mom into it. Bet it wouldn't be too hard with a grandson like him! ;)
Deb,
I share your love for my son and convictions about the lottery- I won't buy a ticket, but I too accept legacies, donations, and graft in general;)
Not going anywhere anytime soon :) In the foreward of "To a Thousand Generations", Wilson explains his background (Baptist) and current situation (Covenant Paedobaptist in an evangelical association of both paedobaptists -PB's- and believer's baptists- BB's). The church has written into it's constitution that faithful, bible believing Christians can be on both sides of the debate and still have fellowship with each other, which I think is a very mature way of handling this and other "controversial" subjects (eschatology comes to mind).
Ian- still trying to work out the appropriate venue, if you know what I mean. I'm sure it will happen sooner, rather than later, though.
Matt,
I'll do it for you, but you'll have to wait a few years :)
I still wish you guys would quote the Bible more than you do books!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Of course we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority. The recommended books rest totally on the foundation of scripture and quote it extensively within their texts (otherwise we wouldn't recommend them!). If I were to post all my thoughts and scripture references on the matter, I'd have to write a book. But, somebody already did that, so I'll just refer you to them! I will be more careful, though, to include scripture references with more of my posts.
your so fucking clueless. go and fucking die. do the world a favor.
Post a Comment
<< Home