Here are several posts I made on Facebook relating the biblical doctrine of infant baptism to the new covenant, by seeing the continuity between all the covenants and the NT's teaching on the new covenant.
INFANT BAPTISM AND THE NEW COVENANT:
A fundamental problem with the Reformed Baptist position on baptism and the covenant is that they interpret Jeremiah 31 without looking at how God interprets Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 10:16-31. They look only at Jeremiah and come up with a (false) interpretation that demands a regenerate-only new covenant right now, when Hebrews 10 makes clear that there still are new covenant breakers and that we still must teach, encourage, and exhort one another until we see the "Day" approaching. That is the judgment day when Christ returns. Only after Christ returns will the new covenant be made up of regenerate only believers, because only after Christ returns will the work of vinedressing by God the Father be complete (see John 15). Only after Christ returns will we no longer need teachers, because we will see Jesus face to face. In short, Jeremiah 31 does not teach a regenerate-only new covenant YET. That comes only after Christ returns and all that is sinful and wicked and false is removed and cast into hell.
This is why Hebrews 10 says a new covenant member can trample the son of God underfoot, spurn the blood of the covenant by which he is sanctified, and outrage the Spirit of grace. There are those in the covenant still who are not regenerate, who do not have genuine, saving faith. The Baptist says that means they were never in the covenant to begin with. But Hebrews 10 (and many other NT Scriptures) says this means they are in the new covenant, and precisely because they are in the new covenant and have broken it, they will reap even greater wrath than breaking the law/old covenant administration under Moses.
Gal. 3 shows that those who have genuine faith are children of Abraham. Abraham received the sign of circumcision because he had faith, then his male descendants 8 days old also received the sign of circumcision, obviously before ever having saving faith. In Acts 2:38ff. Peter reiterates that the covenant promise of salvation is to "you AND YOUR CHILDREN," showing that the covenantal inclusion of the children of believers remains. Baptists will say I did not quote the rest of the verse, that says, "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Indeed, this is a greater blessing in the new covenant. Gentiles too, who were once far off, have now been brought near to God through Christ and into the covenant (Eph. 2:11-13). Peter affirms that children remain in the covenant by saying the covenant promise is "to you and your children," then adds the further blessing that now in Christ even the Gentiles may receive the covenant promise of salvation through Christ. This removes Jewish exclusivity, but it does not exclude children from the Covenant.
Baptism is a sign and seal of the new covenant, just as circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant prior to Christ's atoning work. But Baptists usually think of baptism as a sign of having faith rather than a sign of God's covenant. But that makes no sense. Romans 6, and many other passages indicate that baptism identifies us with God/Christ as His chosen people, that He has covenanted with us in His sovereign good pleasure and initiation, not ours. It signifies the washing away of sins, our union with God/Christ, saving faith, etc., but it does not signify that the person being baptized already possesses saving faith, regeneration/saving union with Christ, etc. Rather, it holds forth the promise of all these things to the one who is baptized, just as circumcision likewise was a sign/seal, not of Abraham's faith, but of God covenanting to be Abraham and his descendants'/children's God.
Baptists also believe that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace, and all the covenants in the old testament were totally different covenants and were NOT the covenant of grace. But Galatians 3:8 tells us that the gospel was preached to Abraham, and the gospel was preached when God gave the covenant to Abraham and told him "in you all the nations shall be blessed" way back in Genesis 17. That Abrahamic covenant promise/blessing was realized in/through the new covenant in Jesus Christ, after He had atoned for sin. As He is ascending back into heaven, He tells His disciples in the Great Commission passage of Matthew 28:18-19 to go and make disciples of "ALL THE NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The Abrahamic covenant promise of salvific blessings to ALL NATIONS is realized through Christ. This means that the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant in Christ's blood are not fundamentally different covenants, but the same covenant, going from seed form to full flower/realization, administrated under different signs/seals (Passover and circumcision in the OT, Communion and Baptism in the NT; the former bloody signs indicating the need for Christ to come and shed His blood to take away sin, the latter bloodless signs because Christ has already shed His blood to take away our sin once and for all time). This is why Galatians 3:29 says "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." If you are in Christ, you are a child of Abraham, a true Israelite/true Jew, an "old" covenant blessing just as much as a "new" covenant blessing, for we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28), and there has always only been one covenant, one gospel message.
So this is really good news! My children are part of the new covenant, and therefore have the right to the sign and seal of the new covenant, which is baptism. This does not mean that my children are necessarily born regenerate, but it does mean they are included among God's covenant people, just as all Israelite children were numbered among God's covenant people. And held forth to them is the covenant promise that if they repent and believe in Jesus, they will be saved. The Holy Spirit is especially at work among the people of God, within the covenant, which is why my children being part of the covenant people of God is such a privilege. Yet it is also why Hebrews 10:16-31 says it is such a terrible thing to break the new covenant that is in Christ's blood; someone who breaks off their covenantal "engagement" to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, really does "trample the son of God underfoot, count the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insults/outrages the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). But the good news is that as I raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord from within the covenant of grace, I have a covenantal expectation that the Lord will bless the gospel proclamation/covenantal nurturing of my children as I raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I expect and trust that, in time, God will graciously and sovereignly bring my children to regeneration and saving faith in Christ.
The Baptist may think that Presbyterians are saying that water baptism saves the children of believers. It does not. But it is a means of grace/sacrament, and it is an external recognition that this child belongs to God, and it is in a sense an "engagement" to be savingly "married" to the Lord, just as a man and woman are engaged prior to marriage. The child may pull away from this engagement through unbelief and break the covenant as he/she gets older, and that is tragic, and as noted above, incurs greater judgment than the pagan unbeliever who was never part of the covenant.
But again, the good news is that my children are already numbered among the covenant people of God, and are "engaged" if you will to be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. This is a wonderful covenant blessing to your children, so please, baptize your babies/give them the sign of the new covenant, and raise them as those who belong to the Lord and must walk by faith in Him.
INFANT BAPTISM AND THE NEW COVENANT, PART 2:
We touched on passages in Galatians 3 last time, but it's helpful to look at it more carefully. Gal. 1:2 shows Paul speaking to the "churches of Galatia" and says that Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins". So the address is clearly to Christians, those in the new covenant, that are in Galatia. And yet they are having serious issues, as Gal 1:6 states "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel." Notice Paul is addressing those who have been called by God/Christ to the grace of Christ. This is covenantal language. You cannot be in the Church and called in the grace of Christ apart from having a covenantal relationship to Christ.
Paul upholds that we are justified by faith and not by works, and that the OT demand of circumcision is not necessary now that we are in the new covenant. The new covenant sign is baptism (replacing the bloody sign of circumcision now that Christ has shed His blood for us), so Paul says in Gal. 4:27-28 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We are not to return to the OT law and its rituals, circumcision and all the ceremonial law is no longer necessary now that Christ has come. Jews and Gentiles alike are one in Christ, the temple is no more because Christ was the true temple of God come down from heaven, and now we as the body of Christ are the temple/dwelling place of God as the Holy Spirit resides in every believer, whether Jew or Gentile.
In Galatians 4:21-31 speaks of two covenants, the one from Mt. Sinai which leads to bondage, the bondwoman, and the other is the freewoman, the Jerusalem above, according to the promise of God and not by the flesh/will of man. Paul goes on in Gal. 4:28 to address the Galatian churches as brethren and says they are "as Isaac was, are children of the promise." Abraham had children, one by a slave-woman, Hagar, the maid of Sarah, and the other by Sarah. God had promised His covenant to Abraham and Sarah's seed, not the maid Hagar. Their faith is weak, so Sarah gives Abraham Hagar to fulfill the promise by human/fleshly means, but God never promised the covenant through Hagar. The point here is not a discourse on two separate covenants (4:24 says this is allegorical), except to say that we are like Isaac, children of the promise, children of the covenant with its promises that were made to Abraham (Gal. 4:28). The covenant promises to Abraham certainly included his children/descendants in the covenant, therefore they include children of believers today as well.
So Paul is saying to return to the shadows of the OT law, to circumcision and all these Jewish ceremonial rituals that were required until Christ came, is to reject Christ. Gal. 5:2, "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you... every man who accepts circumcision is obligated to keep the whole law. You are SEVERED FROM CHRIST, you would would be justified by the law; YOU HAVE FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE."
Again, keep in mind who Paul is speaking to here. He is speaking to covenant members, to professing, baptized believers in the churches in Galatia. He calls them brothers. And yet, he says that if any of them are returning to the law, they are SEVERED FROM CHRIST AND HAVE FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE. You cannot fall away from something you were never part of. The new covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, both Baptists and Presbyterians agree with this. If you are in the covenant of grace, you can fall away from it and from Christ, whose blood is the blood of the covenant of grace/new covenant. But if you are not in the covenant, then Paul's words are not true/meaningless. They wouldn't really be falling away from Christ and grace.
Typically, the Baptist says that such persons are only falling away from their PROFESSION of being part of the people of God. They are falling away from their profession of faith by denouncing the faith. While it is certainly true that anyone who returns to works/the law to be saved has turned away from their profession of faith in Christ alone for their salvation, Scripture is teaching us more than that. They are falling from Christ/grace. This does not mean they were regenerate/born again and then somehow lost this. No, it means they were covenant members, and have fallen from the grace of the new covenant and Christ, whose blood is the blood of the new covenant.
This is why Christians in the NT are exhorted to avoid being like Israel in the OT time and time again. A prime example is in Hebrews 3, which I will quote now and discuss in the next post:
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but [b]exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, 15 while it is said:
“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
Failure of the Wilderness Wanderers
16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? 17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
INFANT/HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM AND THE NEW COVENANT, PART 3 -- Jesus Blesses Babies & Receives Them Because They are Holy:
Luke 18:15-17 states:
15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
These verses tell us that children, EVEN INFANTS, of believers have a right to Jesus, to His presence and blessings, to be received by Him with favor and love. This means, of course, that the children of believers are still included in the covenant promises, are still in the new covenant, for the covenant is in Christ's blood. How could Jesus take up even babies/infants, rebuke the disciples for attempting to forbid their approach, say the babies belong to the kingdom, and even bestow blessings upon these babies by touching them (Mk. 10:16 makes this explicit) if He intended to communicate this radical change where children of believers are now REMOVED from the covenant? What clearer teaching could Jesus have given to the disciples concerning who was to be baptized/who belonged to the kingdom of God, and who does not? After Jesus dies, is risen again, and is ascending into heaven, he tells His disciples to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 28:19). Would Christ's disciples, seeing how Jesus received even babies into His arms and blessed them, and said of such belongs the kingdom, really conclude that the babies were not to be baptized?
Thankfully, the disciples understood that babies of even one believing parent (I Cor. 7:14, which we will look at in detail below) were blessed and received by Jesus as those who have a right to the kingdom of God, and therefore they baptized them in obedience to Christ's command. Acts 2:38-39 shows this, as we have noted before, when Peter calls the people to repent and be baptized, and notes that this promise is for "you and your children". It is important to note that in context it is men who are present here, not children and apparently not wives/women either. So Peter saying that the promise is "to you and your children" is in keeping with the covenant household principle. The men/heads of houses hear Peter proclaiming the Gospel/new covenant, they are cut to the heart/convicted of sin, and ask "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter tells them to repent and be baptized, and that this (covenant) promise is "to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off." When Zacchaeus the tax collector repents of his sins and makes restitution, Jesus says "Today salvation has come to this HOUSE, because he also is a son of Abraham." Jesus then goes to his house, for salvation has come to the house/household. This is not to say that necessarily everyone in the household repented and believed, but it IS to say that the promise of salvation, and thus the right to baptism, is "to you and your children/house".
Further, we see household baptisms in the NT. In Acts 10 we have Cornelius and his house baptized. In Acts 16:14-15, we have Lydia who was a God-fearer, who when hearing the words of Paul, had her heart opened by God to heed them. The very next verse says that "she and her household were baptized." Also in Acts 16:32-34 we see the Philippian jailer and all his family/house baptized. In Acts 18:8 we see Crispus and his household believe and are baptized. Then in I Cor. 1:16 we see Paul referencing baptizing the household of "Stephanus." The point here is not necessarily to argue that the others in the households did not believe and yet were baptized; you can make good arguments that those who were baptized believed in Jesus along with the head of house. The point is that the principle of household baptism continues. If there was an infant/baby in the family, that baby too would be baptized. Surely a baby would be included as part of the household. Jesus took the babies in His arms and blessed them.
I Corinthians 7:14 is a very key verse, and with it we will close. It says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
I think Baptists most squirm with this verse. The Hebrews passages undercut their interpretation of Jeremiah 31:33 concerning the new covenant being regenerate only, but the Hebrew passages have to be read in context and are many verses. This is just one verse that is like a dagger. First, you have an unbelieving spouse being "sanctified" in some sense, and in addition, you have a situation where if even just one parent is a believer, the children are "holy". The children are holy because THE NEW COVENANT IS EVEN MORE GRACIOUS TO BELIEVER'S CHILDREN, not less. Rather than the children being booted out of the covenant, and therefore unholy/unclean, now it only takes one believing parent to be covenantally holy. In the OT, an unbelieving spouse could render the children of that unholy union unholy. But now in Christ, the believing spouse, covenanted to Christ, sanctifies the unbelieving spouse (the unbelieving spouse also has come into covenantal contact with the Lord, though their explicit unbelief would render them covenant breakers) so that the marriage union is not seen as unclean/unholy, but sanctified/set apart to God, such that the children also are regarded by God as "covenantally" holy.
Being unclean, clean, and holy all has to do with covenantal language, and is found in the OT. Those who were ceremonially unclean were unfit to approach God. The OT system of many ritual washings of the people was required even for various bodily deformities, skin diseases, women while menstruating, men after having an emission of semen, etc. Until they were ceremonially washed/cleansed, they were not fit to approach God. If you are unaware of this from Scripture, or need a refresher as I did, go and read Lev. 12-15. The wonderful point in I Cor. 7:14 is that now when there is even just one believing spouse, the whole household has, through Jesus Christ, been ceremonially washed/sanctified/made holy and therefore allowed/fit to approach God. Now, in the NT, what is it that visibly expresses/symbolizes washing away of sins? It is the ceremony/sacrament of baptism! "Get up, be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16). One who was uncircumcised in the OT was unfit to be in God's presence. That person was unclean, a pagan, a Gentile. Now, the Gospel has come to Gentiles as well as Jews, and in Christ the sign of the covenant is no longer bloody circumcision, but bloodless baptism. But baptism still symbolizes the removal/washing away of sin (Romans 6, Titus 3, Acts 22:16 etc.), and Baptists and Presbyterians alike agree that Baptism serves as the formal and ceremonial recognition of a person who now is part of the Church/new covenant. We do not want to present our covenant children to the Lord unbaptized, anymore than an Israelite would dare present himself or his children to the Lord uncircumcised! The washing away of sins as symbolized in baptism must take place first. We baptize our babies because Jesus receives them, blesses them, says the kingdom belongs to them, and because Jesus' disciples calls them holy/clean. Baptism symbolizes all these things, Jesus' love and blessing, belonging to the kingdom/church/covenant, and holiness/being fit to approach the Lord in prayer and worship.
To make abundantly clear, I am not arguing that water baptism of itself regenerates babies, or anyone for that matter. But water baptism is inseparably connected to Spirit baptism, for it is a sign/seal of Spirit baptism, and indeed is a means of grace which God uses, along with the preaching of the word, to bring the covenant child to the point of regeneration and faith, in His sovereign timing and pleasure, for the infant/child. If the children are now holy because the unbelieving spouse is even sanctified by the believing spouse, then the sign/seal of baptism should be applied to the holy children so that they can be visibly marked out as holy and belonging to Jesus Christ, His church and kingdom, and by virtue of being born into a covenant home, are fit to approach Jesus in worship as a member of the covenant. These are all blessings which the child/baby is born into, and is commanded to receive by faith. If the child does not receive by faith these blessings, the child becomes covenant breaker, forfeits the new covenant blessings, and receives the new covenant curses, which are more severe than those under the old covenant with Moses, as we have already discussed in Hebrews 10, 12, and elsewhere.
Here is an excerpt from J.V. Fesko's great book "Word, Water, and Spirit" which pertains to the I Cor. 7:14 passage:
"Against the redemptive-historical background of the whole of Scripture, the household baptisms of the New Testament make sense. If there were children, even nursing infants, or slaves present, they too would have been baptized. The children would have been baptized because they were to be included as children of the covenant, as in the Old Testament. The slaves would have been baptized providing they too would have made professions of faith. More will be said about the baptism of slaves below. The household principle lies behind Paul’s counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16. Paul can say that both the unbelieving spouse and the children, because of the one believing spouse, are holy. In what way are they holy? Holy (ἃγιος) is a cultic term. This is evident as Paul contrasts holy with the term unclean (ἀκάθαρτος). In the canonical use of these terms, Gentile nations were unclean and Israel was holy (cf. Ex. 19:6; Lev. 18:24; Acts 10:28). Anyone or anything unclean was not allowed within the camp, the covenant community (e.g., Lev. 13:46). The Israelite cult and covenant community were essentially the same. In other words, to be holy was to be in the covenant, but to be unclean was to be outside the covenant. The holy and unclean categories cannot be divorced from the concept of covenant. To do so is to abstract them from redemptive history, thus loosing their historical anchor. The words become mere adjectives to describe independent individuals rather than terms that describe individuals within the covenant (or households) and indeed the church as the covenant community vis-à-vis the unbelieving world. Soteric holiness is therefore covenantal. However, in the Old Testament, Israel was holy and the Gentile nations were unclean. In the New Testament, it is the church (both Jew and Gentile) that is holy and the unbelieving world that is unclean. The question then arises, in what way are the unbelieving spouse and children covenantally holy? The main thrust of Paul’s argument is to show that the unbelieving, and hence “Gentile,” spouse (cf. 1 Peter 2:12) does not profane the marriage. Rather, the believing spouse brings the sanctity of the covenant into the marriage. The marriage is considered a “Christian marriage” even if only one spouse is a believer (cf. Rom. 11:16). In the language of the Old Testament, the unbelieving spouse is like the foreigner or sojourner in the land (e.g. Ex. 22:21). But whereas the sojourner would come to dwell in the land in the midst of the covenant community, God brings the covenant community to the unbelieving spouse through the believing spouse. In the same way in which the temple sanctified the gold connected with it (Matt. 23:17, 19), the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse. This sanctity, however, is not connected to the individual but to the covenant, which encompasses more than the individual. The believing spouse casts the light of the new covenant, the gospel of Christ, on the unbelieving spouse through his or her conduct and, in some cases, is God’s instrument by which the unbelieving spouse is saved (1 Cor. 7:16). But while the unbelieving spouse might be sanctified, this does not automatically entitle the person to the sign of the covenant, because as an adult, he or she must make a profession of faith, as would be the case for slaves within a household. This is evident in that Paul instructs the believing spouse to remain married to the unbelieving spouse if he or she is willing to do so (1 Cor. 7:12–13). Peter gives similar instructions to Christian wives whose husbands do not obey the Word of God (1 Peter 3:1–2). Baptism cannot be coerced on one who refuses to believe. The children of the believing spouse are treated differently. They are covenantally holy and therefore receive the sign of the covenant, circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. Children have not yet rejected the covenant, and Christian parents have the responsibility to raise them “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). What else can this mean but to raise them in the covenant, the place where the covenant Lord exercises His authority and where His people serve Him? Paul clearly teaches that children are not treated like an unbelieving spouse. If children are not to receive baptism, as Baptists maintain, then why are they not treated the same as the unbelieving spouse? How can they be raised in the covenantal discipline and revelation of the Lord? There is no isolated, individualistic avenue to God, only that of covenant. But keep in mind the all-important point— the administration of the covenant is broader than election; the visible covenant community is not synonymous with the elect of God." - J. V. Fesko. Word, Water, and Spirit.
Comments
Post a Comment