After initially coming to Christ in December of 2002, I did not know anything about infant baptism until the fall of 2006.  During this time I was attending Regent University and developed a Reformed Theology Class as a personal Directed Study.

Apart from reading Calvin’s Institutes and Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, one of my secondary objectives was to further study the matter of baptism.  Even though I made the time to study and understand the Reformed position, I cannot say that I fully embraced it until I had another opportunity to study this same topic in the spring of 2009 at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

After reading many books and countless articles, the following 5 posts are more or less my defense of why I believe in infant baptism instead of believers baptism.    These posts are from my series that I titled, An Apologia of Infant Baptism.  After these posts I listed books and articles that I read in coming to my conclusion (Obviously in conjunction with the Bible).

Formulating a Doctrinal Position

Covenant: Defined and Delivered

Unity of the Covenants

What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean?

The Argument from Silence

Resources:

Adams, Jay, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism

Atwood, Nate, Baptism: Who Should Be Baptized and Why

Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology

Booth, Robert, Children of Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism

Calvin, John, Institutes of Christian Religion

Chapell, Bryan, Why Do We Baptize Infants?

Clark, R. Scott, Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism

Engel, Paul ed., Understanding Four Views on Baptism

Hodge, A.A., Baptism and Infant Baptism

Jeremias, Joachim, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries

Jeremias, Joachim, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland

Johnson, Dennis, Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed

Johnson, Greg, The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West

Johnson, Greg, Infant Baptism

Marcel, Pierre-Charles, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism: Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace

Murray, John, Christian Baptism

Murray, John, The Covenant of Grace

Owen, John, Of Infant Baptism

Pratt, Richard, Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant

Pratt, Richard, Jeremiah 31: Infant Baptism in the New Covenant

Rayburn, Robert, What About Baptism?

Sartelle, John, What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism

Schaeffer, Francis, Baptism

Sproul, R.C., The Essentials of the Christian Faith

Strawbridge, Gregg ed., The Case for Covenantal Baptism

Strawbridge, Gregg, Covenantal Infant Baptism: An Outlined Defense

Strawbridge, Gregg, Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It

Wallace, Ronald, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament

Wilsom, Douglas, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Both paedobaptists – those that adhere to infant baptism – and credobaptist – those that do not adhere to infant baptism – have said,

One of the most persuasive objections and one which closes the argument for a great many people is that there is no express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism (Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants?, pg. 15)

Although this is the case, what we will see with an argument from silence (argumentus ex silentio) is that infant baptism is presumed in the New Testament with a lack of contrary and convincing reason.

What is an argument from silence?

From the University of Massachusetts History Methodology: Outline of Procedure we read that an argument from silence “means that the thing in question [Infant Baptism] is not mentioned in the available documents.”  What is more, an argument from silence,

If [Infant Baptism] were mentioned, then with the usual qualifications it would be proved to exist…The basic point is that if [Infant Baptism] did not in fact exist, then the only trace which that fact could leave, in the evidence, is the silence of the evidence as to [Infant Baptism]. At the same time, any such conclusion must be provisional. If documents are later found that do mention [Infant Baptism], then [Infant Baptism] is after all proved to exist. A single positive may overturn any number of negatives. A single sound refutes all silences.

The strength of an argument from silence is dependent upon the following factors:

1. The likeliness of the silent argument,
2. A lack of contrary evidence, and
3. The quantities of documents sampled.

In further authenticating infant baptism, let us now consider these three points in measuring the strength of this argument.

Likeliness of Infant Baptism

As said before , we can reasonably presume that infants were indeed included in the administration of baptism due to the unity of the covenants and the similarities of circumcision and baptism.  When we consider that Jewish parents would have applied the covenant sign of circumcision upon their infant children for thousands of years, we can likely presume that they would have administered baptism in the same way.

This is why Bryan Chapell argues,

The removal of any sign of the covenant from believers’ children would have been an immense change in practice and concept for Jewish families.

He goes on to ask,

Consider how the head of a Jewish household would have reacted when others in the household (including servants and resident relatives) were baptized on the basis of his faith while his own children were denied the covenant sign (Chapell, pg. 16).

This is why we can presume that such a change in the administration of God’s covenantal sign to infants should have been recorded with either a command or example by the authors of the New Testament (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg. 936).

As we will see, this is not the case.

Lack of an Explicit Command

In refuting an argument from silence all that is necessary is the production of contrary evidence.  In providing such a source, Fred Malone argues,

The actual precepts concerning baptism can apply only to disciples because repentance and faith are necessary for New Covenant baptism.”  Malone further adds, “The precepts of confessor’s baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Matt. 28.18-20).  To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors’ baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle (A String of Pearls Unstrung)

However, I would like to argue that Fred Malone wrongly concludes that Matthew 28.18-20 presupposes faith and repentance in order to offer baptism to someone.  If I am correct in my conclusion, then the utilization of this passage as a means of justifying believers baptisms alone is invalid.

Writing in response to this objection, Dr. Gary Strawbridge provides the following reasons why this is the case (Covenantal Infant Baptism: An Outlined Defense)

Mathew 28.18-20

First, the grammar of the text itself does not necessitate that the self-conscious act of believing and repenting precedes the administration of baptism.

In the Greek, we read, “πορευθέντες (go) οὖν (therefore) μαθητεύσατε (make disciples) πάντα (all) τὰ ἔθνη (the nations), βαπτίζοντες (baptizing) αὐτοὺς (them)…”  Within the participle phrase, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς, the referent (αὐτοὺς, them) cannot grammatically be related with μαθητεύσατε,(make disciples) because this word is a verb and not a noun.  To press such a meaning would defy basic English Grammar.

Consequently, we cannot press the point that baptizing refers only to those who become disciples.

Second, to contend that baptism is to be administered to confessing individuals – from out of the nations – goes beyond the grammar of the text as well.

For instance, in verse 19, τὰ ἔθνη (the nations) is in the accusative case and is consequently the direct object of the verb μαθητεύσατε, which means it is receiving the action of the verb. Therefore, the ASV, NAS, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, and ESV translate this text, “make disciples of all nations,” not “make disciples out of all the nations.”  No preposition, such as ek (out of), exists within this text that allows us to press such a conclusion.

Third, based upon these previous two observations, a person goes beyond the text to conclude that baptizing follows discipling.

This is why B.B. Warfield said we cannot read this passage “as if the words ean maqheteusantes baptizete, whereas the passage actually standing μαθητεύσατε βαπτίζοντες, merely demands that the discipling shall be consummated in, shall be performed by means of baptism” (From Strawbridge).

A similar observation was made by Daniel Doriani, who said, “‘Baptizing them’…belongs in the context of the Great Commission.  It is an aspect of the discipleship of the nations.”  Doriani goes on to say,

Strictly speaking, Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples, not to baptize.  In the original, the command to ‘make disciples’ is modified by three participles: ‘going,’ ‘baptizing,’ and ‘teaching’ (“Matthew 28.18-20 and the Institution of Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, pg. 36)

Consequently, disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them as we “go.”

This is why I think we can conclude with Robert Reymond,

If one wishes to argue from the requirements stipulated in the Great Commission as to which view more faithfully adheres to the Great Commission, it is the paedobaptists view, since antipaedobaptists do not baptize their infant children (pg. 945).

And besides, if baptism serve’s as a sign and seal of the inward righteousness of confessing adult believers – as professed by Fred Malone and company, then this sacrament fails miserably because there are many today who have been baptized and are no longer following Christ.

In addition, there are no explicit commands to refuse infant baptism or an explicit command to baptize those who make a profession of faith alone.

Lack of Explicit Example

Not only is an explicit command lacking in refuting infant baptism, so too is an explicit example.  If anything, baptism examples within the New Testament lend further support to the argument from silence (Jonathan M. Watt, “The Oikos Formula” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, pgs. 70-84).

Many passages, such as Acts 16.15; 16.33; 18.8; (cf. Acts 11.14) and 1 Cor. 1.16 provides ample evidence that suggests infants were included in the baptism of entire households.  Although these household examples do not close the case on infant baptism, they do place “the burden of proof on those who would claim that children were not participants in oikos (household) baptisms” (Ibid., 84).

This is the case for two reasons.

First, the usage of “oikos” (i.e. household) by Luke and Paul not only preceded them, but “was adopted from he OT cultic language (particular circumcision) and employed in the Christian rite of baptism and has the same form and meaning as circumcision” (Jeremias, The Origins of Baptism, pg. 21).

Even though this does not guarantee that children were present in every household baptism, as Joachim Jeremias observed, “Paul and Luke could under no circumstances have applied the oikos formula, if they had wished to say that only adults had been baptized” (Ibid., 21-22).

What Jeremias is getting at is that Luke and Paul would have used another word or phrase if they really desired to distance baptism from circumcision.

Second, the culture of that day also implies that children were considered a part of the family (Watt, 84.).  From The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, we discover that,

The first-century household among the Greeks and Romans was defined in terms of the head of the head of the family.  The oldest male in the blood line of the family was called the paterfamilias by the Romans.  Every living thing over which he held authority was part of the household: relatives by blood, women who married blood relatives, slaves, former slaves, even livestock (pg. 82).

In contrast to the Western notion of individuality, during the time of the writing of the New Testament a strong sense of family solidarity existed.

It is for these two reasons that the burden of proof resides with those that do not adhere to infant baptism in refuting it.

So, for Craig Johnson to assume that Bryan Chapell’s wrongly assumed the presence of infants in these examples is a misnomer.  If anything Craig Johnson has wrongly “presumed” that all accounts of household baptisms follow the same pattern of Acts 11.14, where baptism follows faith.

This presumption is refuted by Acts 16.30-34 alone.  Dr. Chapell pithily observed of these verses,

The account of the baptism of the Philippians jailer’s household is particularly instructive because of the precise description supplied by Luke, the writer of Acts.  Luke says that all of the jailer’s household was baptized (v. 33), but then he uses a singular verb to describe who rejoiced and believed in God that night (v. 34).  The jailer himself believed (singular verb) and his whole house was baptized.  Sadly, this important distinction in the account is not reflected in some of our modern translations (pg. 19).

Moreover, the existence of some examples of baptisms that followed a confession of faith does not ipso facto (as a result of a particular fact) rule out infant baptism. This is the case for three reasons (Reymond, pg. 936).

1. There are only a few instances of baptism being administered within the New Testament (John Murray, Christian Baptism, pg. 69),
2. Those baptized in the New Testament are considered first generation believers.  As a result, three fourths of the recorded baptisms logically include adult individuals who were entering into a New Covenant (R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pg. 228.), and
3. The remaining one fourth of all recorded baptisms in the New Testament includes the entirety of homes (Ibid., pg. 228).

With this being the case, we can reason that children were included within the administration of baptism in light of the proofs provided above.  In addition to the lack of contrary evidence and Scriptural examples lend further credence to infant baptism.

History

When considering the sampling of evidence from the first four hundred years of church history, the strength of the argument from silence is enhanced.

In concluding his work on Infant Baptism: In the First Four Centuries, Joachim Jeremias’ stated,

A thorough examination of all the sources makes it quite clear that in this whole period of four centuries there were to be found only two theologians who advocated a postponement of baptism, both of them moreover, with reservations (pg. 98)

This historical evidence is further validated in Jeremias’ response to Kurt Aland’s rebuttal in The Origins of Baptism, as well as Greg Johnson’s The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West.

This massive sampling of church history enhances the argument from silence and calls into question the refusal of infant baptism.  The administration of baptism to infants is not illogically deduced, but rather handed down from the Apostles themselves.  In fact, writing in the third century the early church scholar Origen once said,

The church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children (Robert Rayburn, What About Baptism?, pg. 52)

May we too follow within the footsteps of the apostolic witness.

(For further historical evidence, in particular the witness of the early church fathers, see Jeremias, pg. 41; Reymond, pgs. 943-944, and Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pg. 635).

Other Parts of my series on An Apologia of Infant Baptism:

Formulating a Doctrinal Position

Covenant: Defined and Delivered

Unity of the Covenants

What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean?

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

In comparing circumcision with baptism, John Murray proposed that they have the following three elements in common:

1. Union and communion with God;
2. Signification of cleansing from defilement; and
3. Signifying righteousness of faith (Christian Baptism, pgs. 45-48; also see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.1327).   

At this point I would like to address these three features individually so that we can clearly see the similarities in circumcision and baptism. 

Union and Communion with God

In Genesis 17.1-14, we observe that the covenant ratified by God with Abraham was an everlasting covenant that denoted a salvific undertone, in that God declared that He would be “God to you [Abraham] and to your descendants after you” (Genesis 17.7).  As a result, this covenant indicates “union and communion with Jehovah, the God of Israel” (Murray, pg. 47).  In other words, to administer circumcision to infants was to apply a sign in pointing them towards their need of internalizing their faith. 

In bearing out this meaning of circumcision, we observe in Deuteronomy 10.12-13 and 16,

And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the LORD’S commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today for your good…Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more (cf. Jeremiah 4.4).

Not only is this observed in circumcision, union and communion with God is also seen in baptism. 

In 1 Peter 3.21 we read, “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (cf. Colossians 2.11-12).  What is more, we read in Hebrews 8.10, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.  After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts.  And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” 

Considering that baptism is a sign of God’s New Covenant, we can observe how its administration is to serve as such a sign.  Just as the Israelites were once reminded by their circumcision to seek God, so too are Christians today reminded by their baptism to seek God (Marcel, 51-53). 

Signification of cleansing from defilement

Circumcision and baptism also both signify the cleansing from the defilement of sin.  For instance, John Murray shows how Ex. 6.12, 30; Lev. 19.23; 26.41; Deut. 10.16; 30.6; Jer. 4.4; 6.10; 9.25 signify the notion of circumcision carrying “the removal of defilement” (47).  

In regards to baptism, we observe the same connotation.   We read in Acts 22.16 and 1 Cor. 6.11, “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” and “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (cf. Acts 2.38; Rom. 6.3-4; 1 Cor. 12.13; Titus 3.5; 1 Pet. 3.21).

Not only does circumcision imply the cleansing from defilement, so too does baptism.       

Signify righteousness of faith

Finally, both circumcision and baptism signify that God’s righteousness is received by faith (Murray, 47-48; see Rom. 4.11; cf. Rom. 2.25-29; Col. 2.11-14; Phil. 3.2-3). 

On one hand, the reception of circumcision or baptism does not guarantee that a person has faith or that they have received the righteousness of God (John Sartelle, What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism, pg. 7).  On the other hand, these signs do signify that God has promised to give His righteousness to anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ. (Ross, pg. 94).   In the end, both circumcision and baptism are more about the faithfulness of God towards us than it is about our faithfulness towards God.

Not only are these similarities observed between circumcision and baptism, we can also observe that they possess the following similarities: initiatory rites, picture of the death of the old man of sin, represent: repentance, justification by faith, and a cleansed heart, indicate citizenship in Israel, indicate separation from the world, and can lead to either blessings or curses (Booth, pg. 181). 

What’s this have to do with infant baptism?

The implications of the unity of God’s covenant with man and the similarities of baptism and circumcision are tantamount to the baptism of infants.  For if there is one overarching covenant made by God with man, and the signs administered under this unified covenant are substantially the same, and infants were commanded to be circumcised, then we can reasonably conclude that infants are to be included in the administration of baptism unless strictly forbidden.  This is why it has been said that an argument against the baptism of infants in the New Covenant is an argument against the circumcision of infants in the Old (Calvin, 2.1322-1324).

 

 Other Parts of my series on An Apologia of Infant Baptism:

Formulating a Doctrinal Position

Covenant: Defined and Delivered 

Unity of the Covenants

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Within the Reformed Tradition there has always been an emphasis upon the unity of the Old and New Covenants (i.e. Testaments) (Richard Pratt Jr., “Reformed View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant” in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, pg. 65).  In other words, the Old and New Covenants are the same in substance, yet differ in their differ outward forms.

Of this unity, John Calvin remarked,

“The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in substance and reality that it is altogether one and the same…He [God] was no less Spirit, however, under the period of the legal ceremonies that after they were abolished; and must therefore have demanded then the same mode of worship which He now enjoins…In every essential respect the worship was the same.  The distinction was one entirely of outward form” (Taken from Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, pg. 27).

In authenticating this position, the following shall serve as arguments in favor of this claim.[1]

Five Reasons In Favor of the Unity of the Old and New Covenant

First, in both the Old and New Covenants, the church should be considered as one.  John Murray points out that even though the form of the church differs within the Old and New Covenants, this does not necessitate that the church did not exist within the Old (Christian Baptism, pg. 43).  The people of God were called the church in the Old Testament (Acts 7.38) and the New Testament is simply an extension of the Abrahamic covenant.  We observe this to be the case in Galatians 3.9, 14, and 17, which reads,

So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith…so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith…This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Moreover, Abraham is considered to be the father of all who believe in Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, from among the nations (Rom. 4).

So, instead of being considered two separate entities, the church is to be likened to a tree that has grown from one root into one trunk with many branches (Rom. 11.16-21).  Besides, Gentiles who were originally not included in the original covenants are now considered fellow citizens in the household of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2.12, 19-20) (also see Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, pg. 82-88)

Second, the promise of life and salvation is described in the same way in both the Old and New Covenants.  Cornelius Venema said,

“When God first entered into an everlasting covenant with Abraham, he promised to be God to him and to his seed after him (Gen. 17.7).  This language is used of the covenant made at Sinai under Moses (Ex. 19.5; 20.1), of the covenant made on the Plains of Moab (Deut. 29.13), of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 7.14), and of the new covenant in Christ (Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10)” (“Covenant Theology and Baptism” in The Case for Covenantal Baptism, pg. 216).

This is why it was said before that the Israelites looked forward to the promise of life and salvation, whereas we today look back in time to this promise.

Third, the same Mediator – Jesus Christ – resides over every administration of God’s covenants.  We observe this to be the case when we consider that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2.5) thereby making Him the only way that mankind can be reconciled to God (John 14.6; Acts 4.12; Heb. 13.8).  For instance, when Abraham trusted in God, his trust was placed in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3.16, 28-29; cf. John 8.56), who was to come.

Fourth, the gospel is the same in both the Old and New Testament’s.  Redemption history begins in Genesis 3.15, reaffirmed in God’s covenant with Abraham, which came to fruition in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We see this when Paul asserted that “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal. 3.8).

Finally, the obligation of the covenant of grace is essentially the same throughout the Old and New Covenants.  In response to God’s promise in providing an heir and making his descendants more numerous than the stars, we read, “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15.6; cf. Rom 4.9; Gal. 3.6; James 2.23).  Consequently Abraham set an example of faith in obtaining the promise of eternal life from God for all who believe among Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom. 4.9-25; Gal. 3.7-9).  Therefore, we today are to follow his example in living our life in faith as well.

Some Final Thoughts

Since the covenant is foundational to the practice of infant baptism, it is important to reiterate this point.  For “The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the NT economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church” (Murray, pg. 45).

Not only does the unity of the covenants point to the validity of infant baptism, so too does the analogous similarities between circumcision and baptism, thus adding further evidence to the unity of the covenants and the necessity of administering baptism to infants.  For the meaning of baptism is not derived from the New Covenant alone, but rather from the Old Covenant as well (Pratt, pg. 65).

When juxtaposing baptism with circumcision, we can readily see that the two are similar in substance.  Although some antipaedobaptists (i.e. Those against the practice of infant baptism), such as Fred Malone, contend otherwise, some that hold this position have said themselves that circumcision and baptism do indeed symbolize the same inner reality (Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg. 89).

Next week I will turn our attention to their similarities.

---

[1] The first point primarily stems from John Murray, Christian Baptism, 43, whereas the following four arguments derive from Cornelius Venema’s work in The Case for Covenantal Baptism entitled, “Covenant Theology and Baptism.”  215-217.

 Food for Further Thought:

Formulating a Doctrinal Position

Covenant: Defined and Delivered 

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Last week I ended my post – An Apologia of Infant Baptism: Formulating a Doctrinal Position - with the following words

In following the apologia of Mark Ross, the case for infant baptism can fundamentally be made from the rightful deduction of two points: (1) The continuity of the Old and New Covenants; and (2) The similarity in substance of circumcision and baptism.

Before I address the first point, I would like to first define covenant. Afterwards, I’ll address the signs that God provided as a means of indicating that someone had entered into a covenant with Him.

What Does Covenant Mean?

Throughout the history of the Reformed Tradition there has been a substantial difference of opinion in regards to the nature of the covenant.  Although there is a divergence of opinion, Cornelius Venema believes that these differences converge with the following meaning,

“Its [covenant] origin and administration, is an initiative and work of God’s undeserved grace and mercy” (Covenant Theology and Baptism in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, pgs. 206-207)

This covenant that is initiated by God with man insinuates communion between God and man.  In other words, the covenant denotes an intimate and personal relationship between God and man comparable to “the relationship of a “husband to his wife, bridegroom to his bride, or as a father to his children” (ibid., 207).

How Does Covenant Relate to Baptism?

In contributing to Counterpoints: Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Richard Pratt Jr. suggests that we consider the two basic covenants that God has made with man and how baptism is an extension and fulfillment of circumcision administered in the first covenant (Reformed View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant, pg. 64).

The Covenant of Works

In the beginning, God entered into a covenant of works with mankind through Adam.  This is observed in Genesis 2.16-17, which reads,

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

What we observe within this first covenant is the promise of life conditioned upon Adam’s obedience to God’s command.  This observation is implied from the consequence Adam will undergo if he were to disobey God.

Sometime after this covenant was made, Adam disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3.6).  Consequently, Adam, as well as the entirety of mankind (Rom. 5.12), was and is no longer capable of obtaining eternal life through works as originally promised (Eph. 2.8-9).

In providing a means of restoring the broken fellowship between Himself and mankind, God has enacted another covenant, namely, the covenant of grace that promises eternal life through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The Covenant of Grace

The covenant of grace was first promised by God to mankind after Adam originally broke the first. We observe this in Genesis 3.15 when God declared,

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his feet” (bold mine).

The offspring (i.e. seed) spoken of here by God was the prophetic announcement of the future birth of His Son, Jesus Christ (Gen. 7.14; Mic. 5.3; Matt. 1.23, 25; Gal. 3.15-18; 4.4).  It is through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the covenant of grace was ratified by God with mankind.  What does this mean?

What this means is that the promise of eternal life and communion with God is promised to everyone who places their faith in Him. (John 3.16; 17.3; Rom. 1.16-17; 3.21-25; 10.6-9; Rev. 22.17).  Unlike the Israelites – living under the old covenant – who had to look forward to the promise (John 8.56; Heb. 11.13) today we look back in time to the promise of God found through faith in Jesus Christ.

The Signs of the Covenants

During the time of the covenant of works, God’s covenantal signs – indicating that someone had entered into the covenant with God – were administered by “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews” (2 Cor. 3.6-9; 1 Cor. 10.1-4; Heb. 11.13; John 8.56; Westminster Confession, 7.5).  These signs were not an end in themselves, but rather served as a means of pointing the Israelites to God’s promised offspring, Jesus Christ (Heb. 8-10; Rom. 4.11; Col. 2.11-12; 1 Cor. 5.7).

Now that Christ has appeared, fulfilling the promise of God and replacing the previous signs (Col. 2.17), the covenantal signs now administered to both Jews and Gentiles are “the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” (Westminster Confession, 7.6). These signs given by God to man are not an end in themselves, but rather a means of pointing people back to Jesus Christ and the substance of what is promised in the Gospel.

In the end, the Old and New Covenant signs differ only in the means employed (i.e. circumcision vs. baptism) and not in their substance, which is Jesus Christ our Lord (Gal. 3.8-9, 14, 16; Rom. 3.21-22, 30; 4.3, 6-8 (cf. Gen. 15.6; Ps. 32.1-2); 4.16-17, 23-24; Heb. 4.2 (cf. Rom. 10.6-10; 1 Cor. 10.3-4).

In view of the fact that the signs of the covenants differ only in the means employed, I believe that we can agree with Richard Pratt Jr., who said,

“Baptism administers the NT dispensation of the covenant of grace in ways that are analogous to the administration of the OT dispensation of that same covenant” (Pratt, 65).

The sole reason for including infants in the administration of baptism is the covenant itself.  Therefore, since circumcision was administered to infants during the OT as a sign and seal of God’s covenant, so too should infants within the NT be administered baptism as a sign and seal of God’s covenant. (Pierre-Charles Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 199).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

The following eight posts on paedobaptism (i.e. Infant Baptism or Covenantal Baptism) are from Matthew Cochrane of Not Conformed Thoughts.  I came across Matthew’s work while actually searching for a picture to use in my new series, An Apologia of Infant Baptism.  Apart from these posts I encourage you to scan through the rest of his blog.  I believe that you’ll be enriched for doing so.

Why My Wife and I Forsook our Southern Baptist Heritage to Baptize Our Son, James

The Symbolism of Baptism

The Proper Mode of Baptism

The History of Baptism

The Abrahamic Covenant

Abraham’s Descendant’s

The Sign of the Covenant

Commonly Held Objections and their Fallacies

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

When formulating a doctrinal position, it is imperative that we adhere to the historic counsel of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the first chapter, section 6, we read:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (bold mine).

From this counsel we observe that all things necessary for mankind’s salvation, faith, and life are either expressly revealed in the Scripture, or can be deduced from good and necessary consequence.  So, in determining rather or not infants can rightfully be baptized, we must first consider those passages that expressly “set down” such an ordinance.

Some contend that Colossians 2.11-12 establishes such a norm, an explicit command to baptize infants cannot be found in the New Testament corpus.  Although this is the case, before a person can refuse the practice of infant baptism on these grounds must first take into consideration their own practices and beliefs (Greg Strawbridge, Covenantal Infant Baptism: An Outlined Defense, pg. 20).  This is the case for the following reasons.

Many practices, positions, and beliefs are held in the church today without explicit Scriptural warrant.   For instance, take into consideration the participation of women in communion, the observance of Christian Sabbath on Sunday, the recognition of Christmas and Easter as religious holidays, the use of musical instruments, and the ownership of property by churches.  This also goes for commonly held political positions, such as anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, and anti-gambling.

Moreover, some essential facets of the Christian faith are not validated with explicit Scriptural warrant, such as the Trinity and the Nature of Christ, but rather are inferred through comprehensive biblical theology.

Besides, if we were dependent upon explicit biblical command alone in determining practices and beliefs, then there are many examples that are clearly enunciated in the Scriptures that are not adhered to today. Consider the following examples:

• Cast out demons (Mark 16.17)

• Speak in new tongues (Mark 16.17)

• Pick-up snakes with your hands (Mark 16.18)

• Protection from drinking deadly poison (Mark 16.18)

• The laying on of hands with the observable healing of the sick (Mark 16.18)

• The usage of handkerchiefs in physical healing (Acts 19.11-12)

• Greeting each other with a “holy” kiss (Rom. 16.16)

• The use of alcohol in communion (1 Cor. 11.21)

• Speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14.5, 26, 39)

• Prophesying (1 Cor. 14.1, 5, 26, 31, 39)

The reason that these different points are made is to relate that an explicit Biblical command is insufficient in either denying or refuting infant baptism. These matters can be settled by the good and necessary deduction of Scripture.      Commenting upon the authority of the deduction of Scripture, Dr. Robert Reymond asserts, “Biblical principles have the force of commands by good and necessary inference; as a biblical principle” (A New Systematic Theology for the Christian Faith, pg. 936).

Consequently, for a person to deny the administration of baptism to infants on these grounds alone is an attack on logic and logical deduction itself.

If a case for infant baptism is not “expressly set down in Scripture,” then the case for infant baptism needs to be made from the “good and necessary” deduction of Scripture.  This is why John Murray commented, “An express command or a proven instance is not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient. What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the church of God as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture” (Christian Baptism, pg. 69).

In following the apologia of Mark Ross, the case for infant baptism can fundamentally be made from the rightful deduction of two points: (1) The continuity of the Old and New Covenants; and (2) The similarity in substance of circumcision and baptism (From Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals in The Case for Covenantal Baptism, pg. 99).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post: