Some of my X posts on baptism, collected into one place:
A few notes on the debate over covenant baptism….
Some Baptists will claim the old covenant was merely physical (thus it included physical children) whereas the new covenant is spiritual (so physical children are excluded). But the core promises of the old covenant in Gen. 17:7, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your children after you…to be God to you and your offspring after you,” clearly a describe a spiritual covenant. It is a promise of a relationship with God, so it cannot be merely physical. The point is that *physical* children will graciously be brought into a *spiritual* covenantal relationship with God.
A Baptist might say that the old covenant was physical because its sign (circumcision) was physically inscribed upon the body. But the new covenant still has physical signs. The water used in baptism is physical. The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are physical. The physical/spiritual dualism simply doesn’t work as a way of capturing the shift from old to new. (Peter Lillback has an excellent article in the book, The Failure of American Baptist Culture, that shows spiritual and individual aspects of the old covenant, and physical and corporate aspects of the new covenant.)
The single olive tree of Rom. 11 shows that the covenant continues to work the same way. In the old covenant, unbelieving branches were broken out. Physical descent did not guarantee ongoing membership in the covenant apart from faith, even if children started out on the tree. In the new covenant there can still be natural branches on the tree – the children of believers. Once you are grafted into the covenant tree by faith, your children will grow on the tree as natural branches. The vision of family life described in Ps. 128 is just as much a reality in the new covenant – and note that the children around the God-fearing man’s table are olive plants!
Has God made promises to parents in the new covenant? Peter answers that question in the very first sermon preached in the new covenant (post-Petencost) era. In Acts 2, he says the promise is STILL to you and to your children – though now the Gentiles (those who “far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”) will also be brought in. The fact that Peter mentions children as covered by the promise means they are still included in the covenant. Peter is not shrinking the covenant (cutting children off in the new age) but expanding the covenant (since Gentiles as Gentiles will now be brought into Abraham’s family).
This is consistent with everything else we find in the NT about children. Jesus used children as models of kingdom entrance in Mt. 18 (it would odd to use small children as models of faith if they are not capable of faith). He warned adults about causing “these little ones who believe in me” to stumble. In Matthew 19, he says covenant children belong to his kingdom. In the new age, covenant children are kingdom children – members of the new Israel and royal priesthood Jesus is forming around himself. The blessing he bestows upon the children brought to him is not a generic common grace blessing, but the blessing of the kingdom (the blessing of the new covenant).
Paul addresses children as church members in Eph. 6. He tells Christian fathers to raise their children “in the Lord.” He applies the promise embedded in the 5th commandment to new covenant children – but he expands the scope of the promise for these Gentile Christian families. None of this makes sense if the new covenant excludes children. None of this makes sense if children of Christians are supposed to be treated as outsiders until they have a conversion experience.
Baptists might claim they’ve never seen a 2 year old child not in bondage to the flesh. But I’d say I’ve never seen a 2 year old covenant child apostatize. God has made children son they are very receptive to their parents instruction. Our children, like Christians of all ages, are sinners, and they need parental nurture, teaching, and discipline. But the fundamental goal of Christians parents is to disciple (not evangelize) their children.
—
“The child of Christian parents, no less than the adult who made a personal and voluntary profession of faith, [is] a member of the church on the same basis of presumptive membership in the invisible church.” — Charles Hodge
To put it another way, Hodge is saying baptized children are just as much members of the church as their believing, professing parents. He did not follow through on his own insight consistently (e.g., paedocommunion) but he got the core issue right.
—
Baptismal justification, like baptismal regeneration, is fully supportable biblically and historically, but neither is acceptable to Reformed gnostics.
—
A sacrament by definition includes the sign and thing signified. Regarding this baptism: if the sign (water) is not present, it’s not a baptism. Likewise, if the thing signified (the Spirit) is not present, it’s not a baptism. There is no such thing as a waterless baptism or a Spiritless baptism.
—
In Reformed sacramental theology, a sacrament is by definition the union of the sign and thing signified. Calvin and Westminster certainly teach this.
This means baptism is, by definition, water + Spirit. If the Spirit isn’t present, it’s not a baptism. If the water isn’t present, it’s not a baptism. There is no Spiritual baptism without water just as there is no water-only baptism devoid of the Spirit.
—
The Westminster Confession (contrary to the Roman view and in line with Calvin and the other Reformed confessions) teaches that the efficacy of baptism extends through the whole of life. You do not need another sacrament like penance to deal with post-baptismal sin; you simply return to the promise made to you in your baptism.
See footnote 18 here.
—
Paedobaptism is simply grace restoring nature in the context of the family. Paedobaptism just means our children can grow up Christian. God’s new humanity/new creation includes the youngest among us.
Paedobaptism puts a foundation under what most Christian parents want to do instinctively, namely, raise their children as Christians (eg, praying with them, celebrating Christian holidays and seasons with them, singing “Jesus Loves Me” with them, etc.).
Paedobaptism means our children do not need a hurricane-like, dramatic conversion experience when they are older. Rather, they can grow up in a Spiritual rain forest where the covenantal humidity is always very high, so they are continually drenched and soaked in the promises of the Word. They grow up as members of God’s new Israel. The covenant paradigm means our children are not weeds, needing to be uprooted and changed into fruitful plants. The covenant paradigm means God has already claimed them as his own from their earliest days so the parental task is watering, fertilizing, and nurturing the plants God has given us.
Covenant parenting means our children’s testimony does not need a sharply contrasted before and after. They can have a testimony like David’s in Psalm 22. If you asked David when he became believer, he would answer, “in the womb.”
Paedobaptism means our kids don’t need to struggle through an identity crisis, wondering, “Who am I?” That question was answered in their earliest days, when God brought them into his family through baptism. Our children need to be taught to remember who they are, that is, to remember their baptisms. They need to remember that they are dead to sin and alive to righteousness, that they are united to Christ. Covenant parenting is largely a matter of teaching them to remember the covenant God made with them in their youth. We “grab them by their baptisms,”’as Phillip Henry put it.
Some might wonder if paedobaptism and covenant parenting will lead to nominalism. That is a real danger and must be guarded against by applying the warnings of the covenant to our children as much as we apply the promises. But it’s also important to note that the Baptist church has not solved the problem of nominalism. I live in the heart of the “Bible belt” and it’s likely that nominal Baptists outnumber nominal paedobaptists here. The answer to the problem of nominalism is not abandoning paedobaptism, but faithfully practicing church discipline.
—
Some notes on the paedobaptism debate:
1. The fundamental divide between covenant baptism and the Baptist view is seeing baptism as a gift and work of God in which we receive a promise versus seeing baptism as act of obedience in which we make a confession of our faith. Is baptism about God’s promise or is it about our confession? Is it God’s action or ours? In the historic Reformed view, baptism is not a human work, it is a divine work. It is not an act we do for God but a gift he gives to us. In baptism, we are not primarily confessing faith, we are receiving a gift. If you read the NT passages on baptism this way, seeing them as an enactment and application of the gospel to us, they will make A LOT more sense.
2. Baptists frame the debate as paedobaptism vs credobaptism. But traditional Reformed and Augustinian views of baptism (not to mention Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) do not accept that. When we baptize a baby, we are baptizing a believer. We are the true credobaptists. A big reason this sounds shocking is because we no longer sing the psalms. If more Christians grew up singing psalms like Psalm 22 (see especially verses 9-10), paedofaith would make sense. David describes the faithful relationship he had with God even in the womb. He knows he had this relationship with God even as a nursing baby, not because he can remember that far back (no one can!) but because he is looking back on his infancy through the lens of God’s covenant promise (Gen. 17:7). David’s infant faith should be the norm for children born into the context of the covenant. By nature, all children are sinners, but by grace, covenant children are also believers. Covenant children should grow Christian, never remembering a day when they did not love and trust Jesus. God was always already there in their lives. Their testimonies have no sharp before and after because God was already their God in the womb.
3. That covenant promise God made to Abraham, “I will be God to you and to your children,” is really the key. It is impossible to fully grasp the argument for infant baptism if you only look at baptismal texts. You have to look at God’s covenant promises, which always include the next generation. You have to look at passages that talk about households, children, olive trees (Psalm 128, Rom. 11), sacramental feasts and festivals (which always included children), circumcision, generations, etc.
4. The covenantal vs Baptist differences go deep into the way we read the Bible. One example: Baptists like to claim there is no example of infant baptism in the Bible. But this just shows Baptists have not really grappled with the unity of Scripture as whole. There are numerous examples of infants being baptized in Scripture. One test case: In 1 Corinthians 10:1ff, Paul describes Israel’s exodus, and he calls the Red Sea crossing a baptism. Israel was a nation of several hundred thousand people at this point. There is no question there were very young children in their number. So the Red Sea crossing was a baptism that included babies. Paul keeps stressing “all” – all passed through the sea, all were baptized, all ate spiritual food, all drank spiritual drink, etc. Paul calls the Red Sea crossing a baptism because of Psalm 77, which tells us the glory cloud “poured” out water on them as they crossed. (Of course, that text raises questions about the mode of baptism, but I’ve addressed that elsewhere.)
5. Another way of looking at this debate is asking, “What kind of community is the church?” Everyone involved in this debate agrees that baptism is our entrance into the church. So does the church include infants or not? It would be very strange if it didn’t. The whole point of God’s redemptive program is to restore the fallen creation. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, obviously their kids would have grown up knowing and trusting God from conception. So it is in the covenant of grace: Our expectation is that our children will grow up knowing and loving Jesus from the womb. Some might fall away (just as some who get baptized and enter the church at an older age fall away). But we do not have to doubt God’s love for our children, his desire to include them in his covenant family of the church, and the calling of parents to disciple the children God gives them. Our children are holy seed (Malachi 2:15) – they belong to God, and their baptisms in infancy manifest that. The church is supposed to be God’s new humanity. But if infants are excluded because they are not smart enough or big enough, the church really can’t be a new humanity in any comprehensive way. The church is not a club for the mature; it is a a holy nation, and nations always include the children of their citizens as citizens themselves.
6. The reason the historic church has been against the practice of rebaptism is because there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4). If baptism is how we confess our faith, then it would make sense to get baptized again and again – maybe every day or even every hour! We can never confess our faith too often. But because baptism is God’s work, gift, and promise, there is no need for another baptism. Even if someone wanders from the faith into which they were baptized for a season, they do not need to be baptized again when they repent and return to the fold because God’s promise was always sure. If baptism is the manifestation of God’s promise it does not need to be repeated because the promise has not changed.
—
Paedobaptism only makes sense if baptism is God’s work, God’s gift, God’s promise. That’s the real watershed (pun intended) in this debate. Efficacy is the core issue.
—
The Reformers did not use sola fide ( or even sola gratia) to cancel out sacramental efficacy. The sacraments did not compete with faith for center stage any more than preaching. Rather, as in preaching, so in the sacraments, God offers Christ to us. Baptism has reference to justification precisely because God has promised to make Christ available in the rite (as well as the other means of grace). But to receive forgiveness in baptism, one must receive Christ in faith.
Acts 2:38 is very clear regarding the instrumental role of baptism. The Greek grammar bears the point out well. Peter announces, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Repentance (inclusive of, or conjoined with faith, of course) is the human action called for. This verb is second person plural and is in the active voice. “Be baptized” is third person singular and in the passive voice, indicating baptism is the action of Another. No one baptizes himself, as if it were a work; it comes from the outside, as a gift. The singular probably indicates the corporateness of the baptism; that is to say, through baptism, the one baptized comes to share in the once-and-for-all Pentecostal event of Acts 2 and receives the gift of the Spirit given to the new temple/new Israel. The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of your sins” indicates instrumentality: baptism has reference to remission. While word order is not determinative in Greek, surely it is significant that baptism is sandwiched between repentance and forgiveness. Peter did not say, “Repent for the forgiveness of sins, and be baptized as a sign that this has happened.” Instead he links repentance and baptism as a package deal: by repenting from sin, and receiving God’s act of baptism, they would receive the forgiveness of sins. If they repent, they will receive baptism, and in receiving baptism, they will receive (by faith) full remission. Baptism is instrumental in one way; faith/repentance in another.
—
Jesus loves me, this I know, for his baptism tells me so.
Jesus’ baptism is the launching pad for his public and priestly ministry. John the Baptist has said Jesus would be a baptizer, but first he must be the baptizee.
In his baptism, he identifies with his people. He begins his ministry in a river full of sinners; he will culminate his ministry on a hill crucified between sinners. This is because his whole purpose in coming is to identify with sinners, to bear the curse due to sinners, and to save sinners.
Jesus’ baptism is his identification with us in our sinfulness; the sinless one takes on the plight of sinners to rescue them from their sin. Likewise, we can say in our baptisms, we are identified with Jesus in his perfect righteousness; we take on the status of the righteous one in union with him.
Thus, even as Jesus’ own baptism is his gift to us, so our baptisms make us sharers in his baptism. He baptizes us, and when he baptizes us, we share in his once and for all baptism.
Jesus loves me, this I know, for my baptism tells me so.
—
John Calvin, on how Jesus was baptized in order to unite himself to us, and we are baptized so we can be united to him:
“Faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and [resurrection] life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings. For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us. Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]. Thus we see the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism . . . For all the gifts of God proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone.” (Institutes 4.15.6)
It is no exaggeration to say that for Calvin, there is really only one baptism – the baptism of Jesus himself. Our baptism is simply a participation in his once-and-for-all baptism in the Jordan. The sacrament of baptism was sanctified by his submission to the rite; therefore his baptism is the paradigm for our baptisms. He was the first to receive the promised eschatological baptism of the Spirit (e.g., Ezek 37:14); but when we are baptized into his name, we share in that eschatological gift. In other words, Christian baptism rests upon the baptism of Jesus. He baptizes us with the same baptism he received.
For more, go here.
—
In his commentary on the Gospels, Calvin writes, “He received the same baptism with us, in order to assure believers, that they are ingrafted into his body, and that they are ‘buried with him in baptism,’ that they may rise to “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4.)”
—
Charles Spurgeon said Christian parents should bring their children to Christ, not to the baptismal font. But this is a false dichotomy. Christ is present in the waters of baptism. Bringing children to baptism is the way we bring them to Jesus (though not the only way, of course). Just as believing parents brought their children to Jesus for a blessing in Matthew 19, so parents bring their children to Jesus in the waters of baptism for a blessing today.
—
The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was reading from Isaiah 53 when Phillip came to him to answer his questions and explain the text. This led to the eunuch asking if he could be baptized. Where in Isaiah would he have gotten the idea that he should be baptized? From the very passage he was reading in Isaiah! Isaiah 52:15 says, “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” The eunuch knew that if he wanted to be united to this Suffering Servant, Jesus, and receive his saving work, he would need to be sprinkled/baptized.
In Acts 8, there is no indication of an immersion. Phillip and the eunuch BOTH went down into the water and BOTH came out of the water. The OT background shows us definitively that the baptism the eunuch asked for and received was a sprinkling. And this is yet one more proof that the word “baptism” in the Scripture simply does not mean “immersion.”
If the eunuch kept reading into Isaiah 56, he would see new covenant blessings promised specifically to eunuchs.
—
If baptism is a sprinkling, why is the word “baptizo” used? Baptism can also be by pouring so a broader term is used which can allow for water being applied in a variety of ways. The prophets promised the Spirit would be poured out and the nations would be sprinkled. These are the prophecies fulfilled in the Christian sacrament of baptism.
—
I think the eunuch in Acts 8 probably asked to be baptized because he had just been reading about a coming Messiah who would not only suffer for the sins of his people but who would also sprinkle the nations. Once Phillip explained to him that the Messiah he was reading about was Jesus, the question about baptism was inevitable.
—
“Baptism” does not mean “immerse,” at least not in the Bible. There were plenty of baptisms under the law according to Hebrews 10 – hardly any were by immersion.
Paul calls the Red Sea crossing a baptism because the cloud poured out water on them as they crossed – Psalm 77. Peter calls the flood a baptism for Noah and his family because they were rained on/sprinkled from above. These facts are irrefutable.
The “pouring out of the Spirit” in Acts 2 is the baptism John the Baptist and Jesus promised.
Acts 8 does not say anything about immersion. Phillip went into the water as well.
—
The washings of the old covenant were ultimately ineffectual, but Hebrews 9 clearly established the meaning of the term “baptism.” The baptisms of the old covenant were almost entirely by sprinkling.
—
Immersion does not at all picture union with Christ, nor does it in any way picture death/burial/resurrection (eg, Jesus was buried a cave, not lowered into the ground).
The language does not indicate the mode. The key is to note that (a) Jesus was baptized at 30 years old, the same age at which Levites were ordained to the priesthood, and that ordination ritual included a washing with water according to Leviticus 8; and (b) Jesus’ baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, which, given the way Matthew uses “fulfillment” language, means it must be rooted in OT precursors, virtually none of which were by immersion.
Jesus’s baptism is his ordination to the priesthood, which is why he begins his ministry immediately afterwards. His baptism actually has parallels to Ezekiel’s priestly ordination age 30 in the River Chebar when heaven opened to him (Ezekiel 1).
In his baptism, the Spirit was poured out upon him, fulfilling a wide variety of OT prophecies about the outpouring of the Spirit upon the True Israel.
—
The ordination ritual of Leviticus 8 is most certainly a type of Christian baptism, a point picked up on in Galatians 3, Hebrews 10, and elsewhere.
The question of baptism’s absolute (vs. relative) necessity is interesting but not my point here.
The thief on the cross died before baptism was formally established (Matthew 28) so his case is irrelevant to the question.
My position on the matter is that of the WCF.
—
We do not see paedobaptism as an exception to the command “believe and be baptized.” We do not break the biblical link between faith and baptism. When we baptize covenant children, the testimony of Scripture is that we are baptizing beleivers.
—
Baptisms in the Bible are not immersions. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul calls the Red Sea crossing a baptism, but Psalm 77:17 tells us the clouds “poured forth” water as they crossed the sea. It was a baptism by pouring.
Peter calls the flood a baptism for Noah and his family. But they were baptized with water that rained (sprinkled) on them from above.
Noah’s family and the Israelites leaving Egypt were baptized, but not immersed. The water came from above; the mode was pouring or sprinkling. The mass of humanity who got drowned in the flood and the army of Pharaoh who drowned in the Red Sea certainly got immersed in water – but they were NOT the ones baptized.
John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with fire and the Spirit. We know this was fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts 2. No one there was immersed in fire or in the Spirit. Instead the tongues of fire rested above the disciples and the Spirit was poured out.
Hebrews 9 calls the various washings of the old covenant “baptisms” but they were not typically done by immersion. Just read Leviticus and Numbers to see the kinds of washings referred to as baptisms.
The notion that the word “baptism” requires immersions is a myth. Many have fallen for this myth, but it is easily dismantled. The meaning of a word is found in its use and the biblical authors do not use the “baptism” word family to mean immerse. Whatever the word might have meant outside the Bible, inside the Bible it does not mean “immersion.” Period.
—
When the sacrament of baptism is administered properly:
All baptisms are believer’s baptisms, even when the one baptized is an infant.
All baptisms are infant baptisms, even when the one baptized is an adult.
1/3
Covenant infants normatively have faith, eg, Psalm 22:9-10, so their baptisms are not exceptions to the principle, “believe and be baptized.”
Adults who convert must become like little children to enter the kingdom, as Jesus says in Matthew 18:3-4, so adult converts are really baby believers/newborn disciples. When an adult is baptized, it’s still a form of paedobaptism.
2/3
All that to say: There is one baptism. Baptisms of infants and adults are objectively identical. At whatever age we are baptized, we all share in the same baptism.
3/3
—
Matthew 3:7-10:
“[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. [9] And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. [10] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
John the Baptist tells the Pharisees and Sadducees several things about themselves:
1. They are a brood of vipers. They are the seed of the serpent. That means Jesus came to crush their heads. They think they are the offspring of Abraham; in truth, their lives show they are Satan’s spawn. They will be destroyed right along with the serpent unless they repent.
2. They are fruitless trees. Their self-righteousness is highly combustible so when the fiery wrath of God comes near, they will burst into flames. Pride is like kindling; the day of judgment will strike a match. Only those who humbly acknowledge their need for cleansing can pass through judgment unscathed. Only the waters of the Spirit/baptism can quench the flame of wrath that is coming.
3. Their pedigree, tracing back to Abraham, will not protect them in the coming judgment. No matter how pure bred they are as Jews, if they do not repent and bear fruit, they will be cut down and cast into the fire. The blood of Abraham cannot save; only the blood of Jesus can save.
4. We know from Luke 7:30 that the Pharisees did not go out to John in the wilderness at the Jordan in order to be baptized. They went out to observe and then to criticize. They went out to oppose what God was doing through John. This makes sense of the situation: people who went out to meet John in the wilderness and be baptized were acknowledging that Israel was still in exile and in need of a new exodus. Those who went to John for baptism were acknowledging their moral filth and their need of cleansing. In rejecting John’s baptism, the Pharisees rejected the redemption to be accomplished by the one John pointed to, Jesus Christ. The Pharisees did not see themselves as living under the curse of exile (cf. Matthew 1:17) and therefore wanted to maintain the status quo rather than get onboard with the new thing John announced and Jesus would accomplish.
5. All this means John preached both law and gospel. He exposed Israel’s sin, aiming to lead the people to repent. Repentance is not merely a change of mind (as is sometimes said); it is a change of heart, a change of life, a change of loves, a change of loyalties. But John did not just wound his hearers by convicting them of sin; he comforted them with the promise of a salvation soon to be revealed in the One who is mightier and who will bring a better baptism.
—
It is true that baptism only intensifies the judgment that will be poured out upon those who break covenant. But God’s covenantal intention in baptism is to bless even if the decretal outcome might be to damn. This is an important distinction, especially pastorally. If our baptisms result in greater judgment, it is our fault. God has been gracious, and we received the grace of God in vain.
—
We should not let extra-biblical Jewish traditions (which Jesus generally despised) govern our interpretation of Scripture. The precursors to John’s baptism and new covenant baptism are found in the OT, not in extra-biblical requirements that Jews invented.
—
No, baptism is not a burial. It is union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, which is quite different.
In Acts 8, the Ethiopian and Phillip both go to the water and come out of it. Nothing there suggests an immersion.
in baptism we are united with Christ in all facets of his work, including death, burial, and resurrection. But immersion pictures none of those.
Jesus was buried in a cave, not lowered into the ground. And besides, the point of Col 2 and Rom 6 is that in baptism we are united to Christ in every facet of his work (not just burial). Baptism is also for forgiveness, the reception of the Spirit, etc. – forcing baptism to picture burial to the exclusion of these other things is arbitrary.
—
Presbyterians, take note (and Baptists may find this of interest as well):
WCF 25.2 says the visible church is the kingdom, household, and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
WCF 28.1 says baptism admits the party baptized into the visible church.
WCF 28.4 says the child of at least one believing parent ought to be baptized.
Therefore, the children of believers enter into the kingdom, household, and family of God when they are baptized. Our children, from the moment of their baptism onwards, should be treated as citizens of the kingdom and children of God, as fellow members of the church. This should be proclaimed in plain and direct language at every paedobaptism, lest there be any confusion.
Presbyterians, if you deny any of this, you are denying your own confession of faith. If you refuse to say baptized children are members of the kingdom of God, you are rejecting your own system of doctrine. If you refuse to regard baptized infants as members of God’s household and family, you are opposing the plain teaching of the Westminster Confession.
Many, many conservative Presbyterians need to repent of confessional infidelity. They have not regarded baptized children the way the confession demands. They should confess this sin to God and to their covenant children.
—
A lot of questions about and debates over baptism get resolved when you realize that baptism is a work of God. A lot of the biblical texts about baptism come into focus when you see that baptism is a gift God gives us rather than a work we do for God.
The fundamental watershed issue (pun intended) is here: baptism as something I do versus baptism as something given to me and done to me.
For example, what is the relationship of baptism to faith? Baptism is not a way of professing faith. Rather, faith receives and rests upon the promise God gives and works through baptism. Baptism is not about expressing your faith, but receiving God’s gift of Christ by faith. The point of baptism is not expressing faith; rather faith receives what baptism offers.
People who object to baptismal efficacy because they say it becomes a form of salvation by works fundamentally misunderstand what baptism is. Baptism unites us to Christ because it is God’s work, not ours. Baptism washes away sin because it is God’s act, not ours. Baptism saves because God makes it an effectual means of grace, not because of anything we do.
—
Some say baptism is the wedding ring. No. Baptism is not the wedding ring, baptism is the wedding ceremony. Everything you need to know about baptism’s efficacy flows from that analogy.
—
Baptism is ORDINARILY necessary for salvation, just as there is no ORDINARY possibility of salvation outside of the visible church. But that leaves room for exceptional cases.
Faith receives what is offered and given in baptism. Baptism, like preaching, is an objective offer of Christ and salvation. But what is offered must be subjectively claimed by faith.
Baptism and faith are related the same way giving a gift and receiving the gift are related.
—
Why are we justified by faith alone? What’s so special about faith?
The unique function of faith is to unite us to Christ who is our righteousness. He is the Righteous One; indeed, he is the very embodiment of God’s righteousness. The only way to access his benefits is through union with him by faith.
We are incorporated into Christ by faith, so that we share in his righteous legal status before the Father. This is why the New Testament, quite literally, uses the language of believing “into” Jesus. It’s also why we use the language of “receiving” Christ by faith; faith takes hold of Christ for justification as he is offered to us in the gospel through Word and sacrament.
Justifying faith can properly be thought of as active (laying hold of Christ) or passive (resting in Christ). Either way, faith’s unique function is its role in uniting us to him. Union with Christ is the core of the gospel, and we are united to Christ by faith alone. Justification is one facet of this union with Christ; we are justified only as we share in his own justification.
Faith bonds us to Christ; no other virtue plays that role, even if those other virtues are inseparable from faith.
In the nature of the case, faith is extraspective, not introspective. Faith looks away from itself, to Jesus, who is the Author and Perfecter of our faith.
—
Baptizing nations includes baptizing babies
The fulfillment of the Great Commission requires paedobaptism
A nation with mostly unbaptized children can never be a Christian nation
—
Why do you assume covenant children are not regenerate? Can you ever know for certain who is regenerate?
I agree the new birth is necessary. I also know that David and John the Baptist were believers in the womb. Jesus said the kingdom belongs to covenant children and it’s impossible to enter the kingdom without being born again. If you regularly sang Psalm 22 in church, what I’m saying would seem normal, not weird.
—
Infant faith absolutely is normative for covenant children. All Israelites sang about it. They put David’s words on their own lips. We are commanded to sing it as well. Christian fathers are told to bring their children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, and Christian children are commanded to obey their parents in the Lord. Jesus affirmed children were members of his kingdom which indicates they have had the new birth, without which one cannot enter the kingdom. All of that only makes sense if children are included in the covenant and grow up as believers.
What’s odd is expecting the lyrics of revivalistic hymns to be the normal experience of a covenant child.
—
Infant baptism (properly administered) is one of the cornerstones of Christian civilization
There can be no Christendom 2.0 without it
Baptizing nations includes baptizing babies
The fulfillment of the Great Commission requires paedobaptism
A nation with mostly unbaptized children can never be a Christian nation
—
The “federal vision” was largely a retrieval project, recovering dimensions of historic Reformed theology that have been lost in modern popularizations.
FV views on baptism, ecclesiology, justification, faith, and even apostasy can find solid precedent in the Reformed tradition.
Even the thing considered most novel about FV, paedocommunion, has some precedent in the tradition (Musculus) and obviously an ancient pre-Reformation pedigree ( Augustine, Cyprian, etc.).
The Reformed tradition in the past allowed for quite a bit of variety in expression and even substance on many of these questions.
FV was just picking up on threads of conversations that existed in the tradition in earlier generations.
—
“….and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea….” (1 Cor 10:2)
When God was forming his new nation, the first thing he did was baptize them all, including their children.
Baptism – including the baptism of children – is the starting point for building a discipled nation.
Israel was the first discipled nation, the original model of how nations get discipled.
God baptized them in the sea crossing, then took them to Sinai to teach them all his commandments.
Now go do the same with your nation!
—
Jesus loves me, this I know
For my baptism tells me so!
—
“For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of the church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident father, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word.”
— A summary of Calvin’s ecclesial and sacramental soteriology, found in Institutes 4.17.1.
—
Those of you who attend Presbyterian churches – have you ever heard a pastor refer to the sacraments as “effectual means of salvation” from the pulpit? Has baptism ever been referred to as an “effectual means of salvation” prior to administering a baptism? Has the Supper ever been referred to this way when celebrating the Lord’s Table?
—
Paul addresses the letter of Ephesians “to the saints in Ephesus.” Later in the letter he addresses children. Obviously he believed children were saints too or he would not have have included them in the letter. And he tells these little saints to obey their parents “in the Lord.” The little one are united to Christ and called up to act accordingly.
To understand the arguments for paedobaptism, you have to do a lot more than look at a handful of texts that speak directly about baptism. You have to look at the structure of Scripture, the way covenants are described, what the Bible says about parents, children, and church membership, etc.
—
Baptism is ORDINARILY necessary for salvation, just as there is no ORDINARY possibility of salvation outside of the visible church. But that leaves room for exceptional cases.
—
All Israelite children received a Levitical washing at birth.
That washing, like the other water rituals, river and sea crossings, etc., of the old covenant were typological foreshadowing of baptism.
it’s obvious from Leviticus, especially when read in conjunction with Hebrews.
Under Levitical law, a woman becomes unclean any time she gives birth or menstruates, and when she is unclean, everyone she touches becomes unclean too.
That uncleanness is dealt with by a washing, per Leviticus 15.
The book of Hebrews calls all the Levitical washings “baptisms” (and note that NONE of those washings were performed by immersion).
By the time new covenant baptism in the Triune name was established, God’s people had been washing babies with Levitical baptisms for centuries.
—
John’s baptism was an old covenant washing.
And covenant members are always required to bear fruit or they would be cut off.
—
Why would I baptize babies if I thought they were not sinful?
Infant baptism presupposes original sin and makes no sense without it.
Do you think all children who die in the womb go to hell? What of God’s covenant promises?
—
But, John Knox, aren’t the sacraments mere symbols?
“We utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of His righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that He becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.”
(Scots 1560 Confession)
—
“We must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins.” — John Calvin
(Note that Calvin’s view is diametrically opposed to the Roman Catholic view, which says that post-baptismal sin is dealt with not through recalling the baptismal promise of forgiveness but by doing penance.)
—
According to WCF 28.1, baptism is entrance into the visible church.
According to WCF 25.2, the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God.
Do the math.
So much follows from these two claims.
—
One of the greatest illustrations of baptism’s meaning and efficacy in all of literature is found in C. S. Lewis’ Voyage of the Dawn Treader
It’s the baptism of Eustace Scrubb
I used it in a sermon here.
—
10 theses on Calvin’s theology of baptism:
1. Calvin held to a strong view of baptismal efficacy, e.g., what could easily be called “baptismal regeneration,” “baptismal justification,” or “baptismal adoption.” He was thoroughly at home in the baptismal theology of Augustine.
2. Baptism, in Calvin’s view, is God’s work. To be sure, it is also a sign of human profession towards God, but chiefly it is God’s offer and gift of forgiveness and new life towards us. We are not forgiven or regenerated by the water itself, of course, but by the God who has promised to be with the water and work in it according to his good pleasure. This is usually called instrumental efficacy.
3. Baptism, by God’s grace, accomplishes three things: assurance, union with Christ, and adoption. These blessings are objectively present in the sacrament and are subjectively received by faith.
4. Calvin’s statements about the cognitive, assuring function of baptism should not be severed from his strong, instrumental statements about the salvific, justifying function of baptism. Calvin felt no tension between these dual emphases and neither should we.
5. For Calvin, baptism’s efficacy may not be limited to the time of administration. It does not merely blot out original sin or actual sins committed up to the time of one’s baptism. Rather, baptism’s efficacy extends through the whole of life.
6. Thus, postbaptismal sin does not require an additional sacrament, such as penance. Rather, we should look to absolution (especially pastoral absolution in the weekly liturgy) for the renewal of our baptismal forgiveness. In this way, Calvin provides a sure remedy for postbaptismal sin. Believers struggling with assurance are counseled to (among other things) return to their baptisms.
7. Absolution is not a stand-alone sacrament. It must be understood within the context of the baptismal covenant. One problem with medieval scholasticism was the way it severed baptism from the postbaptismal administration of the keys in a believer’s life.
8. Baptism puts us in a gracious, conditional covenant that is kept through persevering faith in God’s promises. Within the sphere of faith, baptism ever retains its salvific power, no matter how great our sin. However, Calvin is aware of the possibility of apostasy. If the baptismal covenant is broken, God promises (or, better, threatens) wrath in place of blessing, death in place of life. Therefore, we must live according to the good beginning made in baptism.
9. The scholastics at once ascribed too much and too little to baptism: Too much because they held that baptism nullified original sin, with its corrupting influences. In this, they underestimated the force of indwelling sin. But also too little because they held that sin after baptism needed the help of an additional sacrament (penance) in order to continue in the process of justification. For Calvin, baptism is complete in itself, at least in the sense that the justification sealed to us in baptism is once and for all. While God has provided other means of grace (such as preaching, absolution, and the Lord’s Supper), these helps simply keep us moving along the trajectory begun in baptism.
10. Later Reformed theologians have tended to shave off the efficacious strand of Calvin’s baptismal theology. This reduction of the sacrament to a bare sign has been detrimental to the health of the church. Recovering a thoroughly biblical, Calvinian sacramental theology and praxis should be among the top priorities on the agenda of Reformed Christians today.
—
The phrase in WCF 28.6 about the timing of baptism’s efficacy is widely misunderstood. It means baptism’s efficacy extends to the whole of life – in line with the teaching of the other Reformed confessions and in opposition to the Romish doctrine that baptism must be supplemented with penance
See footnote 18 here.
—
Both faith and baptism are both instrumental but in different ways.
Baptism and faith are related to one another as giving is related to receiving.
What God gives in baptism is received by faith.
Baptism is the offer; faith is the receptor.
This was Calvin’s model of sacramental efficacy.
Baptism is the gift of God; faith is the open hand receiving and possessing what is offered.
—
There’s never any reason to doubt God’s action in baptism.
We can take him at his Word.
It is true we have to exercise faith to receive Christ as he is present and given to us in baptism – but unless someone is going to argue that we are saved apart from faith, that’s not a problem, right?
—
Baptism and assurance:
Baptism (and the word of absolution and the Eucharist) give faith firm and sure handholds so we can know we belong to God.
Every baptism is a trustworthy act of God that brings the baptized into the visible church.
Some of the baptized reject what they’re given (apostasy).
—
In the WCF the invisible church is the eschatological church, the sum total of all the elect.
—
A sacrament by definition is the union of the sign and thing signified.
Baptism = water + Spirit
All the Reformed confessions agree on this.
If there’s only water, that’s not a baptism.
If there’s only the Spirit, there’s no baptism.
In baptism, God is working through water by his Spirit, just as in preaching he works through the spoken words, and just at as in the Eucharist he works through bread and wine.
—
“….and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea….” (1 Cor 10:2)
When God was forming his new nation, the first thing he did was baptize them all, including their children.
Baptism – including the baptism of children – is the starting point for building a discipled nation.
Israel was the first discipled nation, the original model of how nations get discipled.
God baptized them in the sea crossing, then took them to Sinai to teach them all his commandments.
—
The WCF stands in a tradition of Reformed confessions and must be interpreted accordingly.
The Belgic Confession (34) states, “Neither does this Baptism only avail us at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.”
Likewise, the Scots Confession (21) says, “For baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption.”
The French Confession (35) teaches the same: “[Baptism] reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.”
The Westminster divines were not creating a novel doctrine.
—
The context of the promises about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 have to kept in view to understand what’s being promised.
Judah is on the verge of going into exile.
Jeremiah has announced the coming deportation.
They are going away to Babylon, made to live among the pagans.
In that context, Jeremiah announces good news:
And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:34)
Who will their neighbors be? Pagans.
Jeremiah is promising a coming day under the new covenant when they will no longer have to evangelize their neighbors, saying, “ Know the Lord,” because their neighbors – their formerly pagan neighbors! – will already know the Lord
The new covenant is postmillennial – there will come a day under the administration of the new covenant when evangelism will basically become obsolete.
—
The phrase “the least of these” in Jeremiah 31:34 is a reference to children.
In other words, it’s an explicit proof that children will still be included in the covenant when the new covenant arrives.
Compare to “these little ones” in Matthew 18:5-6.
—
The whole book of Hebrews can be considered an exposition of the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 – but it is also one long, extended warning about apostasy.
The promise of the new covenant means it will be successful in ways the old covenant was not – but that does not rule out cases of individual covenant breaking or even periods of widespread decline in the church.
—
In Acts 2, Peter says, “The promise is to you and your children.” It is impossible to spiritualize the phrase “your children.” Baptists want to spiritualize it because otherwise it’s a clear affirmation that God is still dealing with covenant households. But no one in Peter’s audience — mostly, if not all, Jews, steeped in the covenantal worldview of the Hebrew Scriptures, and gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of Pentecost — would have taken his words as anything other than a reference physical offspring. It is a direct echo of language that appears all over the old covenant (e.g., Genesis 17:7) so it already has an established meaning. If Peter meant something different, something other than physical descendants, he would need to explain himself or use different language altogether. And he would have had quite a controversy on his hands. “You are telling me the new covenant cuts our children out a relationship with God? They are no longer part of God’s people? The promises being fulfilled do not include them?” This would have been so unthinkable to all first century Jews, that it would have created a massive disruption. But no such disruption occurred.
There *was* a disruption as the new covenant began. But the disruption was not caused by the exclusion of physical offspring. It was caused by inclusion of the Gentiles as Gentiles (without circumcision). This controversy was addressed and resolved at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and in the book of Galatians.
Obviously, there is a place for speaking of spiritual children. Paul can call Timothy his son in the faith. We all acknowledge that there are (for lack of a better term) spiritual fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, in the church. But that cannot be what Peter is referring to. In the context of his sermon in Acts 2, that makes no sense.
The Baptist view is predicated on the claim that God does not make promises to believing parents. Baptists claim there are no “children of the promise” or “covenant children.” Baptists claim there is no Christian household. But the phrase “your children” indicates otherwise. The children of God’s people belong to God’s people and should receive the sign that seals their membership in the community of his people (baptism). Peter is extending the promise of the new covenant — the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit — to the physical offspring of believers. Interestingly, in Galatians 3 when Paul summarizes what was promised to Abraham, he locks in on these same two blessings, forgiveness (justification) and the Spirit.
But isn’t faith required to receive these blessings? Yes, of course. But once again, the Scripture’s covenantal paradigm shows us the way. The children of believers are included in the covenant, which means God gives them the gift of faith even in the womb. David clearly described his own infancy this way in Psalm 22, and it was considered normative for covenant children to have paedofaith. Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and others are explicit examples of this paradigm as well.
When a believing Israelite living under the old covenant had a child, he did not wonder who the God of his child was. He did wonder if his child was an Israelite. He did not wonder if his child was a weed or an olive plant. He knew he needed to nurture his child in the faith, as commanded in Deuteronomy 6, but the inclusion of his child was not in question. In the same way, Christian parents should receive their children in the name of Jesus. They should treat and regard their children as Christians. The children of believers in the new covenant are members of the new covenant. In the most complete explication of the new covenant in the Hebrew Scriptures, Jeremiah 31 says that the in the covenant “the least of them” will know God. What could “the least of them” be other than covenant children? Jeremiah’s “least of them” in 31:34 is Jesus’ “little ones” in Matthew 18:6.
—
There is no question God views, treats, and relates to the children of Christians differently than he does the children of non-Christians.
—
Just a reminder: the promises of the new covenant explicitly include children. See Jeremiah 31:34.
The “least of them” are obviously children – Gentile children to be specific, since Israel is going into exile and their neighbors will not be Jews.
Jeremiah, like Jesus, referred to children as “the least of them/these.”
—
At America’s founding, several states had established churches at the state level. (The first amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a church at the federal level.) The disestablishment of these state churches in the 19th century coincided with the establishment and growth of the public school system. In other words, public schools replaced established churches and enshrined a new secular religion in place of the Christian faith.
My point here is not to advocate for an established church – the wisdom of formally establishing a particular Christian denomination is questionable and the American revision of the WCF prohibits it. But it should be understood that America *does* have an established religion and a pseudo-church establishment — that religion is secular statism and it is propagated through the tax-supported indoctrination centers we call public schools. Public school teachers are priests and public school administrators are bishops and archbishops. Your property tax is your tithe. Textbooks that teach evolution, moral relativism, gender theory, and other atrocities are the sacred Scriptures in this quasi-church that we call public schools. While many people like to argue that public education has failed because so few children a really learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, the truth is that government education had been astoundingly successful in creating disciples of secularism.
Christian parents must understand that the public schools are the frontlines in the culture war. Progressives do not reproduce much in the bedroom, but they certainly do in the classroom. Studies show that upwards of 70% of Christian kids who go through the public system end up abandoning the church after they move on from high school. There is simply no way for parents to counteract the curriculum and the culture of the government school system with a few hours of counter-instruction at home and church each week.
—
If nations are to be baptized, and children are members of nations, then children are eligible for baptism.
It would be odd if earthly nations bestow citizenship on children but the holy nation of the church, the kingdom of God, did not.
—
We should not confuse knowing propositions about a person with knowing (and trusting) a person. Infants do not know any propositions about their mothers, but they certainly know (and trust) their mothers.
If infants are made in the image of God, they are in relationship with God. If infants are persons, they are capable of relationships and, indeed, are intrinsically relational. And the most basic relationship all humans have is their relationship with God.
Imposing a religious identity on an infant is inescapable. It’s only question of which religious identity.
—
Covenant promises and paedobaptism should not make parents (or their children) presumptuous. Parental faith in the promises should produce the parental work of diligent discipleship.
—
Baptism as covenant sign is a matter of good and necessary consequence, a plain inference. Baptism is our e trance into the covenant community, the visible church. The argument for paedobaptism does not rest on the circumcision/baptism link, but the link is there in Colossians 2.
—
Paul’s language in Colossians 2:11-12 is dense and complex, but the central point is clear: We are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, and thus have put off the body of the flesh (the old cursed creation) and entered into new life (the promised new creation). Jesus’ death is the end of the old; his resurrection inaugurates the new. This is not just a redemptive-historical point, as Jesus establishes his new creation in history; it is also an existential and experiential point for believers, as our union with Christ means the old man is dead and buried and a new man has come to life. All who are united to Christ have put away the old creation, dominated by flesh, sin, and death, and now share in his resurrection life. A subpoint in these verses in sacramental: The Gentile believers in Colossae (like those in Galatia) were being pressured by a Jewish party to submit to circumcision as the sign of the covenant. But Paul says they do not need to be circumcised because they have been baptized: “In him, you were circumcised…having been buried with him in baptism.” Baptism is the badge of the new Israel, the sign membership in the new priestly people. The baptismal font at my church has eight sides, as most traditional fonts do, because baptism is the washing of the new creation (cf. Titus 3:5). Paul tells these believers in Colossae they do not need to submit to the bloody sign of circumcision because everything circumcision pointed to is now theirs in Christ, sealed to them in the waters of baptism. To submit to circumcision would be a denial of Christ’s work, a denial that the new creation has come. Paul does not want them to live B.C. in an A.D. world. Let the things of the old world go; the new world is here! Luke 2:21 seems to indicate that Jesus was officially named on the day of his circumcision. It is likely this was the Jewish practice at the time, and it is fitting. His name Jesus means he will be another Joshua, and will give us victory over our sins, bringing us in to the promised land of the new creation (cf. Matthew 1:21; Colossians 2:15).
—
Colossians 2 certainly has the old covenant sign of circumcision in view and explains (against the Judaizers) why believers do not need to be circumcised now. Circumcision was fulfilled in the crucifixion. Besides, they’ve been baptized, which is a sufficient sign of their covenant membership: “In him also you were circumcised…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
The issues addressed in Galatians and Colossians are similar. And Paul does exactly what you say – he says baptism has replaced circumcision: “in him you were circumcised, having been baptized.”
—
The circumcision in view is “made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh” and can rightly be linked with Deut. 30. But the reason for telling them their hearts have been circumcised is to counter the arguments of the Judaizers who are pressuring them to receive physical circumcision. And so it’s very crucial to note that he immediately goes on to talk about baptism. They do not need physical circumcision as a sign of covenant membership because they already received the physical sign of covenant membership when they were baptized. That’s the logic and flow of his argument: 1. You don’t need to be circumcised because you have what circumcision pointed to through to Christ, through his crucifixion, which was the cutting off (or putting off) of the flesh. 2. You don’t need circumcision because you have been baptized, through which you are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
—
Baptism is not the wedding ring, baptism is the marriage ceremony.
—
Romans 6 teaches that we are united to Christ in baptism. We are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. Paul asks the question, “Shall we go on in sin that grace might abound?” And he answers his own question:“Absolutely not! You’ve been baptized.” In our baptismal union with Christ, we died to sin and were made alive in righteousness. Now we are to offer the members of our bodies – the baptized members of our bodies! – to righteousness. How dare you offer baptized hands and feet to sin! Your body was sanctified in baptism, so use it in a sanctified way. Your body has been washed, so live a clean life. Be who you are.
In baptism, we are grafted into Christ’s story. His death, burial, and resurrection now frame our lives. Baptism gives us a new identity, with new privileges, new powers, new responsibilities. Baptism gives us a new mission in life. Anytime we sin, we are contradicting our baptism, which means we are contradicting our deepest identity.
Wherever you go, your baptism goes with you. Whatever you do, you do as a baptized person. From one angle, the whole Christian life is simply living out your baptism. The Pauline ethic is simple: Be who you are. Live out what you been given. Walk worthily of the call you received in your baptism. The indicative of baptism grounds the imperatives that follow. Having been redeemed by God in the waters of baptism – our new exodus – we now serve no other gods.
When teenagers are leaving the house to go hang out with friends on a Friday night, parents will sometimes say, “Remember who you are.” In other words, “Remember you are part of our family and you represent us. Don’t do anything that would dishonor the family name or contradict what we’ve taught you.” But we can do better than that. We can say, “Remember your baptism.” That is to say, “Remember that you are Christ’s. You have been baptized him, so act like it. Live as someone who is dead to sin and alive to righteousness.” Parents should grab their kids by their baptisms and remind them of their most fundamental identity.
A great literary illustration of baptism’s transformative power (complete with echoes of the Book of Common Prayer baptismal liturgy!) can be found in C. S. Lewis’ Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Listen to my take here:
trinity-pres.net/audio/sermon05…
—-
Some say baptism is the wedding ring. No. Baptism is not the wedding ring, baptism is the wedding ceremony. Everything you need to know about baptism’s efficacy flows from that analogy.
—-
My identity in Christ does not negate my other identities given to me by my family, nation, etc., but it does shape and mold the way I live out those other identities. In that sense, my in-Christ identity is foundational to and determinative of all my other identities.
—
In baptism, God offers, and we receive; God promises, and we believe; God acts, and we respond. God wraps up the gift of Christ in the means of grace; we receive and open the gift by faith. There is, as Calvin says, “a mutual relation between faith and the sacraments.” This is the structure Calvin insisted upon: “we obtain only as much [from baptism] as we receive in faith.”
—
N. T. Wright has brilliantly shown that Romans retraces the history of Israel. The narrative substructure of Romans 6-7-8 is exodus/wilderness wandering/promised land. Here is my summary:
The major narrative subtheme in Romans, feeding into the wider notion of “God’s righteousness,” is the exile/exodus cycle. Adam was exiled from God’s presence in Genesis 3 (cf. Rom. 1:18-32); in Christ, humanity is “exodused” back into fellowship with God (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Israel recapitulates Adam’s fall, undergoing exile by the Assyrians and Babylonians, losing her little piece of Eden (the temple and land). While that exile had come to an end in a geographic sense, including a rebuilt temple, the glorious restoration, depicted by the prophets in nothing less than Edenic and new exodus imagery, still awaited complete fulfillment. Daniel’s vision in chapter 9 elongated the exilic period from 70 years to 70 x 7 years. The days of desolation would continue on until God acted in a final and dramatic way to rescue and vindicate his people once and for all. Paul now proclaims that in Christ, that final promised exodus has and is coming to pass. God has kept the covenant with his people, and ultimately the entire creation will be delivered from the Pharaoh of sin and death (Rom. 8:17ff). Wright brilliantly traces out the exile/exodus motif through Paul’s tightly woven, highly intertextual argument in chapters 6-8. In fact, he shows that these chapters play off the entire exodus/Red Sea crossing/wilderness wandering/promised land-conquering story of Israel. As the new exodus community, we have been baptized into Christ and are under his Torah. The Spirit is now our pillar of cloud and fire, leading the adopted sons of God on their way to the promised inheritance. All the major themes of the exodus account resonate with the central section of Romans:
Baptism, death to sin’s mastery , enslaved to righteousness(6:1ff) = Red Sea crossing, death to Pharaoh, enslaved to the Lord
Struggle with Torah (7:1ff) = Israel at Sinai
Following the lead of the Spirit as sons on the way to the promised new creation (Rom. 8:1ff) = Israel’s wilderness wandering, as God’s son, following the pillar of cloud and fire, on the way to Canaan
For more: https://pastor.trinity-pres.net/essays/bombing-theologians_Wright-review.pdf…
—
Parents, be what you wanty your kids to become.
Fathers, be the kind of man you want your sons to be, or your daughters to marry
Mothers, be the kind of woman you want your daughters to be, or your sons to marry.
Many parents undermine good teaching with a bad example. It’s not enough to teach your children; your example, for better or worse, will actually carry far more weight. Your children will either see that what you have taught really is a matter of conviction, or they will come to see you as a hypocrite. Your example will be impressed upon them more than anything else.
—
You should raise your children with your grandchildren and great-grandchildren in view.
—
Charles Hodge’s position on the efficacy of baptism is not identical to my own, but Presbyterians should find his view very interesting and perhaps challenging:
“Since the promise is not only to parents but to their seed, children are, by the command of God, to be regarded and treated as of the number of the elect, until they give undeniable evidence to the contrary, or refuse to be so considered… It is not their vital union with Christ, nor their actual regeneration by the Holy Ghost, that is presumed, but their election. This presumption of election is not founded on their baptism, but their baptism is founded on this presumption.”
Where we agree is that baptized children should be regarded as elect until and unless they prove otherwise.
—
“Baptized infants are to be received as children of God and treated accordingly.” — John Murray
—
“Everything points to the conclusion that children equally with parents, servants, and masters, belong to the body of Christ, and are fully embraced in the fellowship of the saints. If children were thus recognized and received in the apostolic churches, they were recognized as possessing the status of which baptism is the sign and seal… Baptism is for infants, precisely what it is for adults.” — John Murray
—
Charles Hodge said baptized children “belong to the class of persons whom we are bound to regard and treat as members of Christ’s Church.” He then added, “This is the only sense in which even adults are members of the Church, so far as men are concerned.” In other words, baptized children should be counted as Christians until and unless they prove otherwise.
—
The children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother’s womb of the household of the kingdom of God. — John Calvin
—
[The] family … is the New Testament basis of the Church of God … [God] does, indeed require individual faith for salvation; but He organizes His people in families first; and then into churches, recognizing in their very warp and woof the family constitution. His promises are all the more precious that they are to us and our children. And though this may not fit with the growing individualism of the day, it is God’s ordinance. — B. B. Warfield
—
The mere promise of God ought to be sufficient to assure us of the salvation of our children. — John Calvin
—
God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his children, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. — John Calvin
—
God is so kind and liberal to his servants, as, for their sakes, to appoint even the children who shall descend from them to be enrolled among his people. — John Calvin
—
Edward N. Gross, articulating his version of the Presbyterian doctrine of covenant succession, from his book Will My Children Go to Heaven?:
“I believe that faithful parents can be sure that their children will be saved and go to heaven. This assurance is based on the promises of God to them and their families. There are conditions that parents are to meet, by God’s grace, as the normal means to the salvation of their children. If parents abandon their responsibilities, then they have forsaken their agreement or covenant with God and have no reason to expect that the promises of God for their children’s salvation will be fulfilled. Parents are to perform all their duties in a spirit of faith, looking to Jesus alone to make their efforts successful. Children are not saved because of their parents. They are saved by grace through the redemption of Jesus Christ. Christian parents are simply the channel through which the message of this salvation is normally conveyed. They most likely will be the tools God uses to bring the salvation offered in His Son to their children. Though most children rightly raised will be saved and grow in grace early in their lives, some may not follow Christ until later. In such rare cases, the promised salvation is received, but not as quickly as anticipated.”
—
Baptism is to the Christian what the Red Sea crossing was to the Israelites.
Baptism is to the Christian what the flood was to Noah and his family.
—
A reminder of a point I’ve made many times in various places: Nothing objective guarantees subjective faithfulness. The objectivity of the covenant is real and it matters. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the gospel are all gifts, objectively speaking. They are all grace in tangible form. Church membership — life in the body and bride of Christ — is a gift as well. But all of these gifts must be received with a working, persevering faith in order to result in finl salvation. Nothing objective guarantees subjective faithfulness — and that means apostasy, or covenant breaking, is a possibility. Nothing objective guarantees subjective faithfulness — this means the danger of covenant presumption (as demonstrated often in Israel’s history, especially by the Pharisees, e.g., Matthew 3, John 8, etc.) is a very real danger. Taking God’s gifts for granted rather than receiving them with gratitude and obedience is the essence of antinomianism.
Consider: The Israelites were saved in their baptismal Red Sea crossing. But then many were destroyed in the wilderness (cf. 1 Cot. 10:1ff; cf. also Jude 5, which says the same people who were “saved” were then “destroyed.”) Or consider the case of Ham. He was saved on the ark, through the baptism of the flood (cf. 1 Peter 3), but then later cursed when he fell away.
—
Infant baptism and baptismal efficacy go together. Infant baptism makes no sense unless baptism is God’s work. And if it is God’s work, baptism can certainly be given to infants.
—
In the New Testament Jesus pronounced the blessing of God upon infants (Luke 18:15-17). Jesus wasn’t just showing affection for the babies. Blessing is a very serious matter in Scripture. In blessing, God places his name on his people, as the high priest did in Numbers 6:27. In blessing the children, Jesus put his name upon them. Significantly, baptism in the New Testament is baptism into the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. 22:16).
— John Frame
—
What Romans 6 teaches about baptismal efficacy has to be paired with what Romans 11 teaches about the possibility of apostasy.
—
“The initiative in Baptism comes from God, and God does not enter into covenant with individuals: he incorporates individuals into the Body of Christ under His Covenant of Grace. It is for this reason that the Reformed Church has generally discouraged the private administration of Baptism. According to Calvin, this sacrament should be administered in the midst of the people; this symbolizes the nature of Baptism, which is entry into the Body of Christ.”
— Geddes MacGregor (Corpus Christi, p. 134)
—
“We can receive forgiveness and newness of life at the font even though we have already been forgiven and regenerated because at baptism our faith is strengthened and draws us into closer union with Christ, in whom those benefits inhere. Calvin seems to suggest that the embrace of Christ and his benefits by faith is not restricted to or completed in a single moment. It is an ongoing process that happens throughout the course of one’s spiritual life—in preaching, at baptism, and in the Lord’s Supper. For one who is already a believer, therefore, baptism is an assurance not only of a grace that one has already received but also of a grace that one receives in greater measure in the sacrament itself.”
— Lyle Bierma
—
“On the other hand, let no one question us as to what communicants gain, on the ground that since this reception is by faith, they already have Christ joined to them if they believe. To answer is easy, for he is indeed joined to them, but is daily joined more closely, and while we communicate is united to us more and more. This happens so that we might fulfil the Lord’s command, who ordered us to eat and drink this sacrament. Otherwise you could say the same about baptism: for as soon someone believes he is justified and has remission of sins, yet he is not baptized in vain. If you ask whether this power of the Eucharist holds for everyone equally, I reply: not at all; rather, according to the reason and proportion of the communicant’s faith. Just as Origen said on Matthew 15: the matter of this sacrament profits only through the Word, and its appeal can assist our minds according to the quantity and proportion of faith.”
— Vermigli
—
“Baptism” does not mean “immerse,”at least not in the Bible. There were plenty of baptisms under the law according to Hebrews 10 – hardly any were by immersion.
Paul calls the Red Sea crossing a baptism because the cloud poured out water on them as they crossed – Psalm 77. Peter calls the flood a baptism for Noah and his family because they were rained on/sprinkled from above. These facts are irrefutable.
The “pouring out of the Spirit” in Acts 2 is the baptism John the Baptist and Jesus promised.
Acts 8 does not say anything about immersion. Phillip went into the water as well.
The washings of the old covenant were ultimately ineffectual, but Hebrews 9 clearly established the meaning of the term “baptism.”
Immersion does not at all pictures Union with Christ, nor does it any way picture death/burial/resurrection (eg, Jesus was buried a cave, not lowered into the ground).
—
People get baptized at different ages but every baptism is the same baptism. There is one baptism.
Every baptism is an infant baptism – see Matthew 18:3-4.
Baptism a gift, a sign of our need. Why wash people who do not need cleansing? Baptism not a work we do, it done to us and given to us. Baptism is a gift of grace.
—
From the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God:
The promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and the right to the seal of it, and the outward privileges of the church…That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians and federally holy before baptism…
–
From the Lutheran (LCMS) book of Pastoral Care and Comfort:
In love God has blessed his people with the washing of holy baptism, through which he gives rebirth in the Holy Spirit to us and to our children. When death comes before baptism, we trust in his mercy that by his grace he has received this child to himself for the sake of the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. We take comfort in the confident hope that this child will be raised to life with Christ in the resurrection on the last day.
—
Baptists often try to explain how the practice of paedobaptism *developed* after the apostles. But it did not develop at all. It simply continued on from the old covenant. The church did not start baptizing babies; it just didn’t stop. The church inherited the practice of infant inclusion from the old covenant and continued it. The children were included in the sacramental, liturgical life of God’s people, including the Levitical washings and the feasts.
It’s far, far easier to explain how some form of credobaptism (or delayed baptism) developed later, after the apostles, than it is to explain how the practice of baptizing babies developed later on if the apostles didn’t already practice it. If the apostles terminated the OT doctrine of covenant inclusion, it would surely have created a massive controversy with Jewish believers who were accustomed to including children in the covenant. The exclusion of children would have been at least as big of controversy as the inclusion of the Gentiles — and the inclusion of the Gentiles required a church council (Acts 15) to settle the matter. The “case of the missing controversy” is proof that Baptists are wrong about the NT and early church history. There’s not a controversy where there absolutely must be one if they are correct.
—
I was asked: Does baptism in and of itself save?
I answer: There ‘s no such thing as baptism “in and of itself.”
By definition, a sacrament includes the sign and thing signified. Regarding baptism: if the sign (water) is not present, it’s not a baptism.
Likewise, if the thing signified (the Spirit) is not present, it’s not a baptism. There is no such thing as a waterless baptism or a Spiritless baptism.
Baptism is water + Spirit.
A better question would be to ask would be, “What does God do through the water of baptism?” And I agree with the way the apostles answer that question.
Here’s another approach:
Does food, in and of itself, nourish your body? No, it doesn’t. Everything you eat is dead. God works through food to sustain your life. Nothing does anything “in and of itself.” God works through means.
—
Baptism is an effectual means of salvation. What God gives in faith must be received by faith, of course, but the gifts of forgiveness and new life in the Spirit are always present in baptism. Properly and validly baptized infants should be regarded as members of God’s people until and unless they prove otherwise.
—
It’s the case of the missing controversy. It’s the dog that didn’t bark. It’s the absence of evidence that creates the presence of proof in this case.
It’s the question from church history Baptists simply cannot answer: How did covenant children get excluded from the people of God without any controversy, council, or even discussion? How did covenant children vanish without a trace? Usually when children go missing, someone takes note of it. How did covenant children disappear – as Baptists claim – and no one notice? How did covenant children start getting excluded without so much as a command to stop including them? How can the practice of millennia be overturned without a word?
—
Baptists need to explain how a whole class of persons who were previously included in the covenant suddenly got excluded in the new and better covenant — and how this exclusion happened without any controversy, command, or council to ratify it.
—
Baptists don’t know how to read the evidence for baptism from the early church because they don’t know how to handle the evidence from the NT.
—
The issue with households being baptized in Acts is not that paedobaptists can prove there were infants in these households (though odds are there were in at least some of those households). The point is that God is still dealing with and covenanting with households as such, as he did throughout the old covenant period. There are definite changes from old covenant to new, but shifting away from the household is not one of them.
—
A few notes on paedobaptism from Acts 2:
Acts 2 is a pivotal passage in baptism debates because it’s the first time the apostles preach the gospel and perform new covenant baptisms.
Note that Peter is preaching specifically to the men (2:14, 29). Just as men led the way in crucifying Jesus, Peter is preaching to these same men, explaining to them what that crucifixion accomplished in terms of God’s plan of salvation (2:23). God used their evil for their good. Only men were required to attend the feast of Pentecost so men would likely be disproportionately represented, though it is likely many men, (especially locals) had their families with them.
When the men ask in 2:37, “What shall we do?,” they are asking the question as the heads of their households. In this way, we can understand Peter’s answer: “Repent and be baptized….For the promise is for you [as heads of households] and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
When Peter says the promise is “for you and your children,” he is affirming in no uncertain terms the covenantal, household structure that had already been established in the old covenant. “For you and your children” is a very obvious and intentional echo of Genesis 17:7: “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” The new covenant, like the Abrahamic covenant, includes the children of believers. Peter tells these fathers the promise is to and for their children.
Likewise, when Peter says the promise is “for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself,” he is echoing Genesis 12:3: “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Those who are far off are the Gentiles. This is confirmed by Ephesians 2:13: “ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Peter is saying the time for the blessing of all the families and nations of the earth has arrived. Gentile families will be welcomed into the covenant and will receive the promised blessing.
So Peter extends baptism and the covenant promise to two groups beyond the men who respond immediately to his message: their children and the Gentiles whom God calls. It makes no sense that Peter would mention children unless he was anticipating their baptisms as well, just as called Gentiles will also receive baptism.
I realize Baptists might say I’ve proved too much. Why didn’t Peter mention baptizing women? I would counter that he’s already covered the inclusion of women by citing Joel’s prophecy in 2:17ff. If the Spirit is poured out on all [types of] flesh, that obviously must include men, women, and, yes, infants. The prophecy mentions sons and daughters, men and women, as recipients of the promised Spirit.
Everything is Acts 2 is consistent with the ongoing inclusion of children in the covenant. Nothing suggests they are being cut out. And as I’ve argued elsewhere, if children were cut out, we’d expect to see that radical covenant change made explicit, and most certainly controversy would have followed. The absence of that controversy is a telling sign no such change was made. Of course, as we read further into Acts, we find the household principle is still in force. God continues to work with, in, and through household units. God includes the children of his people in the new covenant. I. I. Indeed, household baptisms are the norm in Acts. Everyone in Acts who had a household has his household baptized when he is baptized. While it’s statistically probable that at least some of those households in Acts included children, we don’t need to prove that. Households as such receiving baptism shows the new covenant has not altered the Abrahamic pattern. The promise is still to you you and children, to fathers and their offspring after them.
—
The case for paedobaptism does not rest entirely on the circumcision/baptism link. That link is real. Paul tells the Colossians they do not need to be circumcised because they have been baptized. Both circumcision and baptism are tied to the cross:
“In him also you were circumcised…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised… (Colossians 2:11-12).”
But there are many other lines of argument. Many of these lines of argument are typological, eg, Noah’s household was baptized on the ark and the Israelite children were baptized in the Red Sea crossing. Paul’s analogy and warning in 1 Corinthians 10:1ff make no sense if children were not being baptized (and included at the Lord’s table) in the Corinthian church. Children were included in the sacramental life of Israel including the washings and feasts – in other words, children were already receiving various baptisms under the old covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:10), and those various baptisms are all fulfilled in the one baptism Christ gave to his new covenant people.
We see the inclusion of children in other ways. Acts confirms the household principle is still in force; Israel was a patriarchal society and no one doubted that fathers would have authority to bring their children for baptism. Numerous OT texts prophesying the new covenant specifically include children (Joel 2, Psalm 103, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 31, Luke 1, etc.). Jesus included the children of believers in his kingdom and made them the model of kingdom entrance (Matthew 18-19). The faith of parents can procure blessings for their children (eg, Matthew 15). The Psalter teaches that infant faith for children born in the covenant community was normative (eg, Psalm 22). Children are regarded as church members and are to be raised “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6). Peter affirms that the promise of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit is “for you and for your children.” There is no indication in the NT that children should be excluded in the new covenant – and to exclude them would have created some kind of controversy and required some kind of explicit mention, on par with the termination of animal sacrifices, since their inclusion had been the standard practice for millennia. The covenant tree of Romans 11 suggests that the children of believers are branches on the tree. Etc.
There are broader theological considerations that underwrite the practice of infant baptism. If grace restores nature, grace restores the family and that means children should be included in the covenant.
Further, the nature of baptism shows that it is properly given to our children. This is the real watershed (pun intended) in the debate over baptism: Is baptism God’s work or man’s work? Scripture is clear: Baptism is the sacramental answer to original sin, which our children inherit. Baptism is God’s work and God’s gift, an effectual means of salvation – and God can certainly give gifts to infants. He can certainly save infants. He can have a relationship with infants. He can fill infants even in the womb with his Spirit (cf. John the Baptizer). Bringing children for baptism is simply bringing them to Jesus for blessing. And so on. Baptists are not wrong to link baptism to faith, but that’s no hindrance to children being baptized (again, cf. Psalm 22; see also the case of Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:15).
Because some paedobaptists have improperly made the whole argument for baptism rest on circumcision (eg, Warfield), it’s understandable that Baptists focus their energy there and think that if they can break that link, they win the debate. But the circumcision/baptism link is far from the only, or even the most significant, line of argument in favor of paedobaptism. Likewise, simply focusing on a handful of NT texts that explicitly mention baptism is not sufficient. The case for paedobaptism is drawn from Scripture as a whole.
—
“What do children miss if they are not baptized?”
I think God is merciful to the children of Baptists who should have been baptized and weren’t. They are covenant children in spite of the fact that their parents and pastors don’t recognize that fact about them. But they still miss out, as do their parents.
When a child is baptized that child enters into the kingdom, household, and family of God. The child is given the Holy Spirit and the promise of forgiveness. The child is united with Christ, publicly and formally. The child is given a Christian identity. The child is given (or should be given) access to the Lord’s table.
It’s no small thing.
—
“if circumcision has replaced baptism, why didn’t the apostles say so at the Jerusalem Council?”
Because that wasn’t the precise issue. Jewish Christians continued to practice circumcision even after the Jerusalem Council. They just couldn’t require the circumcision of Gentile believers. The verdict of the council was that Gentiles did not need to become Jews in order to become Christians. The council said nothing about Jews being forbidden from continuing to practice circumcision.
The issue was not, “Must Jews stop circumcising since they are baptized?,” but “Must Gentiles get circumcised and become Jewish in order to be saved?” It’s as if some Jewish believers wanted Gentiles to get circumcised as a prerequisite for getting baptized and the Council rejected that view.
Interestingly, I’d argue Paul does answer your question in Galatians 3. The whole chapter deals with the question, “Who are the children of Abraham?” And Paul answers not “the circumcised” but “the baptized.” See 3:27-29: All those who are baptized have put on Christ and belong to him; and if you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s children.
Going back to Acts 15, it has bothered me that the Council did not tell Jews to stop circumcising altogether since circumcision no longer marks out the covenant community. Why continue using a bloody sign after the cross? But the apostles (wisely) determined that if Jewish believers wanted to continue circumcising as a cultural/ethnic thing, they were free to do so. They just couldn’t make it a test of fellowship for Gentile believers.
—
If baptism has not “replaced” circumcision, why aren’t we obligated to go on circumcising?
I don’t think “replace” is really the right word here. But the point is clear: circumcision no longer marks out the Israel of God. Children of Abraham are marked out by baptism.
If circumcision has been rescinded, has anything taken its place? The answer must be yes — just like we no longer keep Passover or the other old covenant feasts because they have been transformed and superceded by the Lord’s Supper.
Ultimately, circumcision was fulfilled by the cross. Christ is the circumcision. As the promised seed, he was cut off for us.
The new covenant fulfills and transforms the old through Christ’s death and resurrection. The new covenant does not replace the old, so much as it glorifies and transfigures it.
—
Household baptisms and household communion should go together.
—
“His blood be on us and our children.”
This was the cry of the fathers who made up the mob that demanded the crucifixion of Jesus. They were calling down covenant curses upon themselves and their children. They were covenant breakers, but they were still thinking covenantally, in terms of generations.
In a very different way, with a very different meaning, it’s also the cry of the faithful covenant father, who knows the blood of Jesus is the only way he and his family can be saved. It’s the cry of the covenant keeping father, who is thinking in covenantal and generational terms.
—
The Bible commands us to treat our children as believers, even from the womb. Period. It’s always been this way.
—
God promised to Abraham that all the *families* of the earth would be blessed in his seed – a promise that comes to full realization in the new covenant (Romans 4, Galatians 3). Families include children (obviously). If families as families are blessed, children are included in that blessing (eg, when Jesus blesses the infants brought to him, he is giving them the promised Abrahamic blessing). To exclude children from baptism and from church membership is to exclude them from the blessing promised to families and thus contradicts the Abrahamic promise. The household baptisms of Acts are further proof that the blessing comes upon families as families.
The same argument could be made with nations since Abraham was promised the nations and nations also include children.
—
One of the ironies of the Reformation: The doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by the Roman Catholic Church is far weaker than the doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by the leading Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and arguably, the Westminster divines.
One surefire proof of this claim is that, for Rome, baptism has to be supplemented by penance as a way of dealing with post-baptismal sin, whereas the leading Reformers taught the promise of forgiveness given in baptism was not limited to the time of baptism’s administration, but extended for the duration of one’s life. There was no need for the false sacrament of penance; you just recall and rest in the promise of absolution made to you in your baptism.
For more evidence: https://theopolisinstitute.com/calvin-on-baptism-penance-and-absolution/
—
“Why doesn’t the NT just tell us baptism has replaced circumcision?”
The NT pretty much does say baptism fulfills and transforms what circumcision pointed to in Col. 2:11-12 and Gal. 3:27-29. But baptism fulfills a lot more than just circumcision’s meaning. All the old covenant washing rituals and water events pointed to new covenant baptism as well.
More importantly, in the NT, Jewish Christians are never told they must stop circumcising their children; the issue is whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised as well. Baptism is not brought up in the circumcision debates such as Acts 15 because it’s just not relevant to actual topic at hand. The debates over circumcision in the NT have nothing to do with excluding children and everything to do with including Gentiles. Jewish Christians knew Gentiles would be baptized; but believed the Gentiles ALSO needed circumcision. The question at issue was whether or not Gentile believers had to be circumcised in order to enter Abraham’s promised family — but the fact that families would be blesses/included means children were quite obviously going to receive the sign.
—
“Why debate baptism when demon-worshipping leftists are tearing up our civilization?”
Because I want our children to share in the victory we’re going to win over the demon-worshipping left!
Children are actually at the heart of our battle with the left. Our children are either part of Jesus’s army or Satan’s army. They’re either disciples of Jesus or Satan. They aren’t neutral.
—
“Were females members of the old covenant?”
Yes. The Abrahamic covenant was all about bringing the promised *male* seed of the *woman* into the world. When a boy was circumcised, the blood shed brought cleansing to his mother (see Leviticus 12). So women “participated” in the circumcision of their sons.
—
It should go without saying that the biblical arguments for paedobaptism are decisive and most important (eg, infant baptism is explicit in 1 Cor. 10:1ff). But the argument from church history is not insignificant.
So here goes a key line of argument, though not the only historical line of argument):
Here’s a way to summarize the historical issues the Baptist faces if he wants to argue the apostolic and early church practiced professor’s baptism only:
1. He has to explain why discontinuity in the NT did not create a controversy. Children had always been included in God’s covenants, they are suddenly excluded, and there is not a trace of discussion or controversy about it in the NT. Is that plausible? Not a single apostle thought to make a defense of this change? Jewish Christians never questioned it?
2. If the apostles were Baptists, the Baptist has to explain how paedobaptism became the universal (or very near universal) practice of the church very early on (by Cyprian and the Council of Carthage in 256, or certainly by the time of Augustine) without a trace of discussion or controversy about it in the writings of the early church. We are supposed to believe the whole church was Baptist, changed over to paedobaptist, and there is not any evidence of argument or controversy breaking out over this change? That Baptists stood by silently while paedobaptists took over? We are supposed to believe that the church was Baptist early on, but Origen and Augustine had never heard of such? Is that plausible?
These historical discontinuities — the change from paedo-inclusion to paedo-exclusion in the apostolic era and then the reverse change in the early church era — are simply not supported by the historical record.
—
“If baptism replaced circumcision, why doesn’t Paul just say that in Galatians? It would’ve made for a shorter letter”
If Galatians was a tract written to counter works salvation, it’d be a lot shorter.
If Galatians was written to critique ritualism, it’d be a lot shorter.
But Galatians is neither of those things.
Galatians, at its core, is a road map of redemptive-history, with the aim of countering the circumcision party in the church and clearing things up for confused Gentile Christians. It’s an eschatological book, showing what it means to have entered the new age and the time of the Church’s maturity.
If you consider the context, it’s easy to see why there was conflict over circumcision. Circumcision was part of the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic covenant, so it’s easy to see why it would be a sticking point. The promise of Genesis 12 was that Gentile families and nations would be brought *into* the family of Abraham. They thought the Abrahamic covenant – and therefore circumcision – was eternal, and so of course they thought Gentiles would need to be circumcised. That’s how it had been for almost 2000 years. Circumcision marked out Israel as the special priestly people and the people through whom the promised seed would come.
Part of Paul’s strategy in the letter is to lump circumcision in with the law, even though it predates the law (a point many interpreters overlook). He shows the law, with its Jew/Gentile divide, had to be eradicated and the signs that marked out the covenant family (= Abraham’s family = Christ’s people) had to be transformed. The new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, but in fulfilling the covenant, it also transforms it.
Simply claiming “baptism replaced circumcision” would not be enough without much more elaborate argumentation for Jews who thought the Abrahamic covenant was the “forever” covenant. Paul does finally make that point, at the end of chapter 3 when he says baptism dissolves all status differences between Jew and Gentile – something circumcision could never do since circumcision was part of the dividing wall that kept Jew and Gentile distinct. But it’s not enough to claim baptism now marks out the Abrahamic family instead of circumcision – it needs a lot of explaining, which Paul goes to great lengths to do.
As far as children are concerned, since Paul says that Gentile *families* would be brought into the family of Abraham, and families include children, putting the new covenant sign on children would never have been controversial; it would have been expected. If families as families are not brought into the Abrahamic covenant anymore – if the new covenant is only with individuals – that would require an entirely different kind of argument, and one Paul never made.
—
“Galatians teaches the Abrahmic blessings are only for those with faith.”
Fine. Scripture teaches us to consider our children as believers even in the womb.
—
Jesus put the blessings of the kingdom, the blessings promised to Abraham, upon all the children who were brought to him.
—
Scripture teaches us to treat our children as believers, as covenant participants, as church members, until and unless they prove otherwise.
—
An old X post:
No theologian in the history of the church has argued every baptized person is eternally saved. FV doesn’t teach that – neither does anyone else I know of. So that’s not the issue here.
Here’s the issue: Are there 2 kinds of baptisms, one for the elect (which is an effectual sign/means) and another for the non-elect (which is an empty sign)?
Or
Are there 2 kinds of recipients of baptism, those who receive what is given/offered in baptism with a persevering faith, and those who reject the gifts God offers in baptism, thus becoming covenant breakers and intensifying their judgment?
The former is the view (at best) of most modern American Reformed churches. It makes baptism useless as a means of assurance because the only way you know which kind of baptism you received is if you have *already* attained assurance of your election by some other means.
The latter view is that of Calvin, FV, etc. It treats baptism as a genuine means of grace and means of assurance to those who mix the waters of baptism with a living faith. The latter views maintains the objective-subjective dynamic found in Calvin and other Reformed greats. Baptism is always what God says it is; objectively, it is what it is. But we can only subjectively receive what is offered and given in baptism by faith.
In short: Are there two types of baptism, one with a promise attached (for the elect) and the other a counterfeit (for the non-elect)? Or there is one baptism, received in two ways, either with faith that keeps the covenant or unbelief that breaks the covenant? The “one baptism with two possible responses view” is much more Reformed, historically speaking.
—
Jesus continues his earthly ministry among us by means of word and sacrament.
—
Circumcision and baptism are related but not the same. Circumcision divided Jew from Gentile (Gen. 17). Baptism unites Jew and Gentile in Christ (Gal. 3).
Circumcision pointed to Savior who would come and the blood he would shed. Baptism unites us with the Savior who has come by the work of his outpoured Spirit.
Circumcision made the one circumcised a Israelite. It made him a member of the priestly nation. This is not to say the child was outside the covenant prior to his circumcision; if he was not circumcised on the eighth day, he was considered a covenant breaker, which presupposes some kind of pre–circumcision covenant membership. Likewise, baptism can be considered a covenant-making, covenant-ratifying rite. The one baptized is united with Christ (Romans 6); that union can be considered analogous to a marriage. The one baptized has a new identity, new privileges, new responsibilites. He is joined to the body and bride of Christ. But if he proves to adulterous later on, he can be divorced/cut off for his covenant-breaking through the process of church discipline (culminating with excommunication)
—
I’ve often said there are no Baptists in the NT. I’ve now realized I was wrong. There are Baptists in Luke 18:15:
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.”
The disciples, in trying to keep children from Jesus, were the original Baptists.
[I know, Baptists will point out there is no water in the text of Luke 18. But that misses the point. There is Jesus in the water when we bring our children for baptism. A sacrament is the union of the sign and thing signified. Indeed, bringing our children to be baptized is a foundational way we bring them to Jesus in their earliest days. And when we do so, Jesus blesses them and affirms their kingdom membership. To prevent the children of believers from being baptized is to repeat the error of the disciples.]
ADDENDUM: This post struck a nerve so let me say a few things about it.
First, I love my Baptist brothers, and I know you love Jesus and want to bring your children to Jesus. Baptists often do a far better job actually raising their children than Reformed/Presbyterian families do these days. That’s too our shame, but it’s a reality.
Second, Baptists and paedobaptists have been arguing back and forth for about 500 years now. Sparring with one another over this issue is not a distraction from more important issues; children, and who our children belong to, are right at the heart of the culture war. Good natured, but serious, jabs back and forth is a way for iron to sharpen iron. I hope some had their thinking sharpened by my post, even if they disagree.
Finally, I do think there’s an analogy between the disciples wanting to keep children from receiving Jesus’ blessing and Baptists withholding baptism from their children. This is a connection paedobaptists have been making for centuries. It’s nothing new. Matthew 19 and Luke 18 do not provide the strongest arguments for paedobaptism in themselves, but they fit with a larger covenantal, generational pattern found throughout Scripture. I’ve made dozens of other (often much stronger) arguments for paedobaptism on X and elsewhere. I wrote a book about covenant children entitled Paedofaith that goes further. My post proved what I have long believed – that before we can determine who should be baptized, we have to know what baptism is. I see an analogy between Jesus blessing children in the gospels and what happens when a child is brought for baptism. In baptism, Jesus continues his work of blessing the children of his people. In baptism, our children receive the exact same blessing those children in the gospel accounts received. The things Jesus did in his earthly ministry – like preaching the gospel of the kingdom, feeding multitudes miraculous meals in his presence, and blessing the children of believers, he continues to do today in the ministry of word and sacrament. If the question is asked, “Does Jesus still bless children today, and if so, how?” I would answer, “Yes, and bringing children for baptism is a foundational way he blesses them.” Bringing children to the font is bringing them to Jesus precisely because Jesus is present and at work in baptism. Indeed, Jesus is the Baptizer! Jesus said our children belong to his kingdom and his kingdom belongs to them. Baptism is entrance into the kingdom. If the kingdom is theirs, how can baptism not be theirs as well? There’s more to say, of course – read my book – but that’s the logic behind my post.
—
It makes no sense to say adults must become like children to enter the kingdom but then deny kingdom membership to actual children. Who is more child-like than a child?
—
The Great Commission tells us to make the nations Christ’s disciples, by baptizing them and teaching them all that he commanded. (Note the order: Baptism is not for those who already are disciples, but makes disciples.)
The background is the original discipled nation, Israel. The pattern is the same as the Great Commission: baptism then law. God baptized Israel in the Red Sea crossing, then took them to Sinai to teach them all of his commandments. Of course, there were infants in the nation of Israel when they were baptized by the glory cloud as they crossed the sea (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1ff) This means infant baptism is inherent in and implicit in the Great Commission. Children are members of nations; nations are to be baptized; therefore children are to baptized too. Israel was the original discipled the nation and the model for the Great Commission; Israel included infants; therefore, baptizing infants is included in the work of discipling nations.
—
A question for Baptists:
If our infants can receive Christ’s blessing in a dedication service, why can’t they receive his blessing in baptism? Blessings can only be received by faith and Scripture consistently presents our infants believers – Psalm 22:9-10, Matthew 18:5, etc. Jeremiah specifically says “the least of these” will be included in the new covenant – and that’s consistent with how Jesus described the little ones who were brought to him. Baptism is one of the ways Jesus gives us his gifts and there’s no reason to think infants cannot receive his gifts.
—
It would be impossible for baptism to be an effectual means of salvation, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches, unless Jesus were present in its administration. I always trust Jesus to be present in those places he’s promised to be. Jesus is the baptizer; he has promised to give himself and unite himself to us in the rite of baptism.
Baptism cannot be an effectual means of salvation unless the Savior is present in it.
We come to Jesus by faith and repentance. Jesus comes to us by word and sacrament.
—
Many of the questions at the heart of the Reformation were explicitly sacramental and liturgical in character. Martin Luther’s driving question was not simply, “How can God be gracious to sinners?” but “Where can sinners find this gracious God?” The medieval church did more than simply point people back to their works to make satisfaction for sin. It pointed them to relics, acts of penance, icons, prayers to Mary, and other assorted forms of idolatry. These were the places the medievals were told to go to have an encounter with God.
The Reformation break-through was more than rediscovering justification by faith alone. The Reformers pointed people to the preaching of the Word, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper as the places where God’s grace in Christ may be found. If we are to seek Christ where he has promised to be present, we must seek him in the Word and the sacraments. These are the places where Christ gives himself to us and distributes his cross-won benefits to his people.
In the late medieval church, there was very little preaching or teaching offered to the laity in their own language. Baptism was hardly regarded as a means of grace since it had to be supplemented with penance to cover post-baptismal sin. And the laity were essentially cut off from the table from the twelfth century on, either by fear of spilling the transubstantiated blood or by the practice of private masses performed by priests alone. The Reformation sought to restore the means of grace to their rightful, biblical position in the liturgy and life of God’s people.
The Reformation was an all-out assault on the idolatry of the church’s corrupt sacramental system and priesthood, analogous to the Old Testament reforms of Josiah and Hezekiah. The Reformers destroyed relics, smashed icons, and put an end to the cult of the saints. They refocused attention on the biblically prescribed means of grace, emphasizing preaching and reducing the number of sacraments from seven to two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). They replaced penance with absolution, a weekly reminder of the promise of perpetual forgiveness made at baptism. The Reformers also reconfigured the church, emphasizing the priesthood of the baptized and the need for corporate participation in worship. In the late medieval church, most “worshippers” came merely as spectators, to watch the priest perform a “hocus pocus” magic show. People gazed at the sacramental elements in adoration but did not actually eat and drink. Liturgy was not really “liturgy” at all, in the classic sense of “the communal, public work of the people.” The Reformers, by contrast, emphasized vigorous congregational singing and corporate prayers. The liturgy was put into the vernacular language of the people so they could follow and participate.
For more: https://trinity-pres.net/essays/HistoryofReformedWorship.pdf
—
The debate between Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists is not merely a debate over who should be baptized, but what baptism *is.*
Is baptism an “effectual means of salvation” (as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it)? Is it God’s blessing, God’s work, God’s gift?
Or is baptism an act of obedience, a way the one baptized professes his faith, a “work” done by man?
This is the basic watershed (pun intended) in the debate. I realize not all paedobaptists or Baptists would agree with the categories laid out above, but typically this is why there is so much talking past one another and so much misunderstanding.
Here are a couple resources where I wrestle through these questions from an historical perspective:
Baptismal Efficacy & the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, & Future
—
If Jesus said one must be born again to enter the kingdom (John 3) and Jesus also said the kingdom of God belongs to our children (Matthew 19), what conclusion follows?
—
In Matthew 19, disciples try to prevent beleiving parents from brining their children to Jesus for a blessing. Jesus rebukes them. He wants the children brought to him. He blesses them. he declares that they belong to his kingdom.
There is analogy between the disciples keeping children from Jesus and Baptists witholding baptism from their children.
But there is also an analogy between the disciples and Reformed/Presbyterians who whithold the Lord’s Supper from their baptized children.
In baptism, we are anointed as kings and priests. If the kingdom belongs to children, how can the kingly washing, the royal anointing, be kept from them? How can the priestly sacrificial meal, the royal feast of the kingdom, be kept from those who have been ordained into the royal priesthood?
—
The means of grace are really the “means of Jesus.” They are the ways Jesus gives himself to us.
Jesus is the Preacher. He’s also the Baptizer.
What Jesus did in his earthly ministry, in preaching the gospel of the kingdom, in blessing children, in feeding the multitudes who followed him, he continues to do in the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Jesus is present in the Word. Jesus is present in the water. Jesus is present at the table. He continues his work in the world through these means, these gifts.
—
“His blood be on us and our children.”
This was the cry of the fathers who made up the mob that demanded the crucifixion of Jesus. They were calling down covenant curses upon themselves and their children. They were covenant breakers, but they were still thinking covenantally, in terms of generations.
In a very different way, with a very different meaning, it’s also the cry of the faithful covenant father, who knows the blood of Jesus is the only way he and his family can be saved. It’s the cry of the covenant keeping father, who is thinking in covenantal and generational terms.
—
Getting baptized should not be an IQ test. Neither should coming to the table. But that’s what inevitably happens when children are excluded.
—
More on the baptism/circumcision relationship:
Baptism does not “replace” circumcision. It fulfills it. There is a difference. In some ways, the meaning of circ and baptism overlap, but in other ways, they are opposites. Circ was a sign of the promised seed to come – especially the fact that the promised seed would be born of the Spirit, not the flesh, and would be shed blood (= be sacrificed). Baptism is union with the seed who has come, in his death, burial, and resurrection. Circ divided Jew and Gentile, while baptism unites Jew and Gentile. Circ was bloody, baptism is watery. Etc. So, yes baptism has “replaced” circ in that the new covenant church does one and not the other, but “replacement” doesn’t capture the actual relationship of baptism to circ.
Baptism also fulfills the many baptisms of the old covenant. There is one baptism in the new covenant; but in the old covenant, there were numerous Levitical baptisms (Hebrews 9 calls these old covenant washings “baptisms”), and infants were subject to those baptisms. Infants were washed at birth under the old covenant, so baptizing infants was nothing new, though the definitive, unrepeatability of baptism was new (under the old covenant a person might have been baptized dozens of times over the course of his life). This is the proper way to way to frame the question: Did infants participate in the sacramental life of the old covenant church? And if so, is there anything that suggests they should now be excluded from the sacramental life of the new covenant church?
The NT could not indicate any more clearly that the new covenant maintains the multi-generational household structure of the old covenant. The point of household baptisms is not that infants were present in those households (though it’s likely that they were); the point is that households as households got baptized. For Baptists, only individuals get baptized. Baptism, for Baptists, is tied to each individual’s profession of faith. For Baptists, there is no household covenant, no household promises, no “as for me and my house….” What the Baptist has to show is that in the new covenant, God does not make promises to believing parents about their children and does not work with households as households. If the principle of the Abrahamic covenant – “I will a God to you and to your children” – is still operative, then children ought to be baptized. I would argue the promises about the new covenant given in the old specifically include children (eg, Jeremiah 31, Psalm 103, Isaiah 59, etc.) – and then these trans-generational promises get reaffirmed in the NT. When Peter said “the promise is for you and your children,” everyone present would have understood exactly what he meant by “promise” and by “children.” The promise is the promise of the new covenant, understood as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and all other previous covenants; and “children” had to be physical offspring, because all previous covenants had a familial, household structure. There is no shift from household to individual in the movement from old to new. The households baptisms in the book of Acts confirm this; biblical religion is still “household religion.”
—
“If paedobaptists argue that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, why do women get baptized?”
Short answer:
Baptism does not “replace” circumcision. God weakened Abe by requiring him to be circumcised in Genesis 17 right after he tried to bring the promised seed into the world in his own strength in Genesis 16. In the book of Genesis, male circumcision corresponds to female barrenness – they both have to do with demonstrating the promised seed will be brought into the world by the power of the Spirit, not the flesh. Circ was a threat to Abe – “try to bring the promised seed into to the world in your own strength again, and I’ll cut the whole thing off!” Of course, Paul picks up on the implied threat of castration in the book of Galatians.
Circumcision was not about male headship as such; it was about the way in which God had promised to bring the messianic seed into the world. Baptism fulfills circumcision, but it’s not a direct replacement because they have very different meanings. It’s not like God just swapped out one sign for another and everything else remained the same. In some ways, circ and baptism have opposite meanings – circ divided Jew from Gentile, whereas baptism unites circ unites them. You could also argue circ distinguished men from women since it is tied to the different roles men and women play in redemptive history – the woman gives birth the the male seed (“she will be saved in the childbirth,” as 1 Timothy 2 puts it), while the male seed sheds his blood to bring cleansing (circ was a form of sacrifice). Of course, just as baptism unites Jew and Gentile in Christ, it unites men and women in Christ.
It is interesting that when a woman gave birth to a son, his circ shortened the time of her uncleanness (Leviticus 12), indicating that when the promised seed finally comes, the shedding of his blood will bring cleansing to women as well as men. Paul calls the cross Christ’s circumcision made without hands in Colossians 2. The cross is the replacement/fulfillment of circ in a very fundamental way.
In terms of baptizing women, remember, all men, women, and children were baptized many times in the old covenant. Getting baptized frequently was a way of life under the Levitical code. The book of Hebrews refers to these Levitical washings as “baptisms.” Every infant was baptized after birth in the old covenant – infant baptism as such was not new in the new covenant. Women had to be baptized regularly to wash away various forms of uncleanness – so of course, no one is going to argue the church should stop baptizing women. Men also got various baptisms under Levitical law. New covenant baptism fulfills all of these old covenant baptisms and rolls them into one (unrepeatable) baptism. New covenant baptism is a kind of super-baptism that does away with the need for all of the old covenant washings because it fulfills them all (just like the Lord’s Supper rolls all old covenant feasts into one meal that fulfills them all).
We could also argue for the inclusion of women in baptism from other old covenant typological baptisms. The ark got baptized, and since it was a household baptism, it included women (1 Peter 3). The Red Sea crossing was a baptism – and it included women and infants (1 Cor. 10). Etc.
So I don’t think it’s very difficult to make the argument for baptizing women. There are actually numerous lines of argument that point that way.
TPC Pastor's Page 