As promised, I’ve begun to fill out my reasons for paedobaptist convictions below….
1. The continuity of the Old and New Covenants in redemptive history
As passages like Galatians 3, for example, make clear, the New Testament understands salvation in Christ to be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.
In Gal. 3:16 Paul writes, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.” Jesus and the New Covenant he inaugurates is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Then, in verses 26-29 Paul elaborates on how that Abrahamic covenantal promise benefits us,
”for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Those who are saved in the New Covenant do so as heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. The former is the fulfillment of the latter. And note in verse 27 the significant place of baptism as the sign of covenant membership.
2. The continuity of the way of salvation in the Old and New Covenants
“Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”. The saints were saved then, as now, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We ought to expect that the means of grace, by which “Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption” (Shorter Catechism 88), while differing in external form in the various covenant administrations, will nonetheless cohere with this single covenantal plan of salvation, and stand in basic continuity of meaning with one another.
3. The continuity of the people of God in the Old and New Covenant
As Ephesians 2:11-22 makes clear those who come to Christ in the New Covenant are one with the covenant people of God across the ages:
”Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ….
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”
As 1 Peter:1:1 thinks of the church, it is comprised of distinctly Jewish sounding “pilgrims of the dispersion”. Later in 2:9-10, he says that the church is a,
“chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.”
We might also point to Romans 11:17 which describes the salvation of the gentiles in the New Covenant in terms of our in-grafting, as wild olive branches, into the cultivated tree of Israel.
God’s people are not two diverse and loosely related entities under the Old and New Covenant’s but are one. Membership in both the New Covenant and Old Covenant ekklesia is on the same basis, and the signs of such membership ought to be administered to all those who belong to the people of God.
4. The continuity of the spiritual reality signified in the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants (and…)
5. The consequent continuity in the function of the Old and New Covenant sacramental signs
Colossians 2:11-12 says,
”In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 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.”
Paul tells us there that the spiritual reality, called here “the circumcision of Christ”, that New Covenant believers possess is “the putting off the body of the flesh”. That is, the spiritual reality known as circumcision of the heart in the Old Covenant (Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4) is something enjoyed by believers in the New. The outward sign that points to that inner reality of spiritual circumcision is baptism, “Being buried with him through baptism…”
The function served formerly by circumcision (the outward sign under the Old Covenant that pointed to the inner reality of circumcision of the heart) is now served by baptism. We no longer need to be circumcised, Paul is saying, because we have the reality circumcision pointed to, only now that reality is signified by baptism, and the dominant metaphor for the inner spiritual grace signified is no longer ‘the putting off the body of the flesh’ in a kind spiritual circumcision, but union with Christ in his death and resurrection.
So, that gets us to this far:
1. The covenants, people, and way of salvation in the Old and New Testaments stand in fundamental continuity and harmony.
2. The sacramental signs, while differing in form, point to the same reality. Baptism now serves the role once served by circumcision.
Therefore, baptism takes the place of circumcision in the administration of the covenant. Just as the children of covenant members were circumcised so now they are baptised.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 10, 2009 at 11:15
Iain
Hi David,
It’s your very last sentence that I would query. Surely in the old covenant there is no such thing as ‘children of covenant members’? If one is a covenant member through physical birth, then one is a covenant member from birth – the children are covenant members in their own right. So I’d agree that baptism is the new covenant equivalent of circumcision, one marking being born into the old covenant and the other marking being born (again) into the new covenant. I doubt I have phrased that correctly, but I hope you see what I’m trying to say (and will therefore understand where I’ve gone wrong!).
Best wishes,
Iain
July 10, 2009 at 17:34
David Strain
Iain,
Nice to hear from you. I trust things are progressing nicely at LCPC.
Thanks for the comment. I agree that children are in the covenant by birth and are therefore covenant members. This does not negate the fact that they are children of covenant members too.
You say that circumcision was the sign of being born into the covenant in the OC, and baptism of being born-again into the NC. The problem with that is that it proves too much. You want to say that baptism belongs only to those who have been born again, and that only the born again are covenant members in the NC. But that makes no sense of the baptized unregenerate that have been universally present in Christian churches since the days of the New Testament (one thinks for example of Simon Magus and Ananias and Saphira, and Judas for that matter)
Either you must assert that such people were not really covenant members and were therefore wrongly baptized, or you must abandon your insistence on a regenerate church membership.
It is the contention of the Reformed wing of the church that regeneration is a secret work of the Spirit and cannot be proven by a body of elders through examination. Instead what elders require is not a proven conversion but a credible profession.
In other words, recognising that there is a distinction to be made between the visible church and the invisible, that “not all Israel are Israel”, and that sacraments belong to the external administration of the covenant and to the life of the covenant community, we look for credibility not proof, excercising the judgment of charity.
Baptism belongs to the arena of the visible, external and fallible. Regeneration belongs to the invisible, internal and infallible. While baptism is the sign of new birth, as was circumcision in the Old Covenant, it does not indicate that the person baptized, any more than the person circumcized was in fact regenerate.
You say that circumcision was the sign of Old Covenant membership, which was by birth, and baptism the sign of New Covenant membertship by new birth. But this overlooks the symbolic function of circumcision as a sign of regeneration in the Old Covenant, as I say above, (and you seem to concur).
But if baptism belogns only to those who receive new birth, what was the point of the parallel symbolism of circumcision? Surely it too was a sign, in exactly the same way baptism is, of regeneration.
July 17, 2009 at 12:12
Iain
Hi David,
you’re blogging so prolifically that this is off the front page already!
I think my view that there is no such thing as a child of a covenant member in the Old Covenant is a sticking point that we’re not going to get beyond. But I suppose it’s hardly surprising that we’re not going to resolve the baptism question one way or the other in this thread.
Yes, I would say such people aren’t covenant members. I would say they were ‘wrongly baptised’ if by that we mean that they weren’t covenant members, but I wouldn’t say they were ‘wrongly baptised’ if by that we mean they gave a ‘credible profession’, as regeneration is as you put it ‘a secret work’ – I’m with you on that (which incidentally seems to me to be more supportive of adult than child baptism, since in what sense can an infant give a credible profession?).
Yes, I agree that baptism is no more a guaranteed sign of regeneration than circumcision was (except possibly statistically, but that’s not the point), but I don’t see that as an argument against believers baptism.
I don’t see circumcision as a symbol of regeneration in the Old Covenant, just as a symbol of being born into God’s chosen race (among which there were believers and unbelievers, and not only at the invisible unknowable level but the highly visible, just how bad can these kings get, level), which I guess makes a significant difference and clarifies what I meant in my first post (to me, if not to you). There is I think no indication in the OT that circumcision was withheld from a child on the basis of their parents faithless lifestyle, or indication of provision made for such a contingency – circumcision was administered on the basis of heredity rather than ‘credible profession’. (Which I guess could be an argument used in favour of the Highland practice in Reformed churches of baptising children of unbelievers. Like me, as it happens.)
It seems to me that the emphasis in the Bible – and in Reformed/evangelical understanding – is on personal and individual salvation, faith, responsibility, repentance, rebirth, and so on, rather than family or communal, and I can’t square that with the heredity principle at work in covenant baptism.
You’ve probably heard by now that Angus Lamont has accepted our call – all we have to do now is to get the manse fit for human habitation again after the two car strikes…
best wishes,
Iain
July 17, 2009 at 15:20
David Strain
Iain
I rejoice that Angus is coming to London. I will be praying that the Lord wil greatly use him for his glory and all-o-y’all’s good (as they say round here!).
As for your responses on baptism, you make a good point regarding the witholding of circumcision from faithless parents, though the Law is pretty clear on what ought to have happened to faithless and disobedient covenant members.
In my view the silence of the OT one way or the other, or even the presumption that circumcised but wicked people’s children were also circumcised, tells us nothing about what *should* take place. As you point out, under the Kings, for example, things were at a very low ebb spiritually. It is not surprising therefore to find circumcision along with much else being twisted and abused.
As for circumcision being a mere national identity marker rather than a sign of regeneration I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I fear we are simply going to be rehearsing the arguments on each side rather than persuading one another. My posts were not intended to be an assault on my Baptist brothers so much as an articulation of my own view. I find that with the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church here in MS, even PCA churches like ours are full of members who practise infant baptism without any clue about why. I wanted to rehearse the arguments again as much for my own sake, so that I am ready to explain and help when asked.
I do appreciate sharpening effect of your responses however.
Give our best to Bethan and Maisie.
David
August 3, 2009 at 13:19
Iain
Since I only changed my view about it some time after coming to London – rather than, say, at university – I have never really had any conversations about the issue. But yes, not much to be gained by batting it back and forth for too long on here.
Glad to see you back on the blogging horse.
Best wishes,
Iain
July 20, 2009 at 14:13
A Strained view of Baptism « Hand to the Plow.
[...] he then fleshes those reasons out in the following installments, found here, here, here, here and here. Posted by Alexander Brown Filed in Uncategorized Leave a Comment [...]