Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) and Covenant Theology

Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology:

1. The Old Testament church and the New Testament church are in essence the same church.

2. God includes the children of believers as members of the visible church.

3. In the Old Testament, the children of believers, by virtue of being covenant members, were given the covenant sign of circumcision.

4. In the New Testament, God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant.

5. Therefore, children of believers, because they are covenant members, are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.

1. The way of salvation (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3-13) and the Saviour (Romans 3:20-26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6) are the same for people before and after Christ.  Before Christ, people were saved by looking forward to Christ and what He would do. Today, people are saved by looking back to Christ and what He did (Hebrews 10:1-4). Both are under the same covenant (Galatians 3:27-29), members of the same body (Ephesians 2:11-19) and branches in the same olive tree (Romans 11:17-26) - unbelieving Jews were cut off, Gentile branches were grafted in.

As the Old Testament and New Testament churches are in essence the same church, their titles are interchanged: Old Testament Israel is called ‘the church’: [‘Church’ [Greek: ecclesia] = ‘congregation’ [Hebrew: qahal] (Psalm 22:22, Hebrews 2:12)]. Israel at Sinai is called "the church/congregation in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The New Testament church is called Israel (Galatians 6:16), and terms used for Old Testament Israel are used for the New Testament church (1 Peter 2:9). God’s New Testament people are represented as a nation (Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:25-26, 2 Corinthians 6:16).

2. God included the children of believers in His covenant of grace – an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7). God nowhere overturned the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant: without such we cannot exclude them from the covenant. As the children of believers were covenant members, those who oppose infant baptism must prove that they were thrown out. Conversely, the New Testament affirms the covenant membership of the children of believers. Acts 2:39 “For the promise is to you and you children”. Peter was talking to Jews (people fluent in Old Testament); if their children were no longer covenant members, Peter certainly used the wrong words. The promise is the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8, 14) – the Abrahamic covenant is only referred to in the singular.

Paul when writing "to the saints who are at Ephesus", in Ephesians 6:1 addressed the children of believers, recognising them as church members. Paul said the children of believers are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14); ‘hagios’ is a covenantal word meaning to be ‘set apart’ to God (Romans 11:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17, Ephesians 2:21, 5:27, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Paul proclaims that the law did not nullify the promise given to Abraham (Genesis 17), rather the promise “to you and you children” still holds (Romans 4:13-18, Galatians 3:13-18).

3. Children of believers received circumcision in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:10-12): a rite with spiritual significance (Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 9:25-26, Romans 2:26-29).

4. Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of entrance into the covenant. In the Old Testament, a proselyte and their household received circumcision as the sign of initiation into the covenant. In Matthew 28:19, Christ commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations – but baptise, not circumcise them. The spiritual meaning of baptism (Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38) and circumcision are the same. Circumcision symbolised regeneration (Deuteronomy 30:6), conversion, repentance and faith (Jeremiah 4:4). In the Old Testament, a true Jew was not an outward Jew, but a person who had the inward reality (Romans 2:28-19, Philippians 3:3) – a person who was justified by faith (Romans 4:11).

God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant – the two share the same basic meaning – which explains why they are used interchangeably. In Colossians 2:11-12, we are said to have received the ‘circumcision of Christ’ ‘having been buried with Him in baptism’. Christ’s circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by that which baptism signifies (Galatians 3:27-29).

5. Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.

The main objections to infant baptism are:

1. “There is not an explicit example of or command for infant baptism in the New Testament”. The refutation is that the burden is on them to show that the children of believers were thrown out of the covenant. Also, there is no example of or command for women participating in the Lord’s Supper either: does this mean they cannot?  Conversely, the New Testament speaks of the ‘covenantal’ baptism of whole households (Acts 16:15, 33, 1 Corinthians 1:16), upon the profession of faith of one parent. Lastly, there is not one example of the Baptist practise of a person growing up in a Christian home, then being baptised after years of proving themself to be a Christian.

2. “Faith comes before baptism, infants cannot have faith, therefore infants should not be baptised”. That objection could be rearranged to say “People cannot be saved without faith, ‘infants cannot have faith’, therefore infants cannot be saved”, which is clearly unbiblical (Psalm 22:9, Luke 1:41).  Also, their argument makes faith depend on human ability, rather than God’s grace: both infants and adults cannot believe of themselves (John 1:12-13). They are correct that an unbaptised adult must profess faith before being baptised, but they are incorrect to extend this thinking to children. This Baptist objection would be equally applicable against infant circumcision. If we apply this Baptist objection to 2 Thessalonians 2:10 we would have “Only those who work may eat, infants cannot work, therefore infants cannot eat.”

“Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.”

(C), J. Williams, December 2011.

Protestantism and Roman Catholicism: Part 2 of 3

1)      An Introduction

This is only a very brief comparison of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Importantly, Christianity is NOT a coin with two legitimate sides to one common faith. The disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not peripheral - rather they encompass the crux of the gospel. Stated bluntly, Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are unregenerate, while Protestants believe that Roman Catholics are unregenerate. In light of Galatians 1:8-9, Protestants are right (c.f. Ephesians 2:8-9)

When I refer to Protestantism, I use the creeds of the Reformation as the standard; for example, while many Protestants reject infant baptism, the Reformation creeds affirm it; therefore, it is the stance of Protestantism. For Roman Catholicism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent are the standards I used. A denial of a more minor aspect of Protestantism does NOT deem someone unregenerate. I denote which teachings are damnable.

2)      Ecclesiology

It may seem tedious initially, but I must start with ecclesiology. Roman Catholics CLAIM that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ with the Apostle Paul being given “the keys to the kingdom”. Roman Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope and by Divine Institution a succession of Popes will have authority over the entire church until the return of Christ[i]. Protestants reject the Papacy, which to us has no more validity than the hierarchy of the Taliban.

Catholics and Protestants have DIFFERENT definitions of ‘church’. While Roman Catholics define the church as the visible church of Rome worldwide, Protestants distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church is the community of those who profess faith and their children, while the invisible church refers to all of God’s elect (every person chosen by God before the foundation of the world across all time) or the worldwide totality of those who currently believe. However, the visible and invisible church are not two separate churches, but two aspects of the one church of Jesus Christ.

I will evaluate two verses on this topic:

1 John 2:19-20 states “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know”.

John is discussing people who seemed to genuinely profess faith, but then ceased fellowship. John remarks that “they were not really of us” – that is they were never genuine members of the invisible church: they never believed and were never In Christ: they were members of the visible church, but never members of the invisible church.

These people were never true Christians, as true Christians cannot apostatize “if they had been of us, they would have remained with us”; their departure from the visible church empirically proved that they were never true Christians “they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us”. The true church is not only visible but internally SPIRITUAL, as the Holy Spirit is what secures true believers against apostasy “But you have an anointing from the Holy One”.

Romans 9:6 states “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”.

Paul differentiated between the invisible and visible church in the context of explaining why the majority of the Old Covenant Jews rejected Christ. In the broader context, “the ordo salutis” of Romans 8:29-30 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” notes that salvation is completely of the Lord: God ALONE predestines, efficaciously calls, justifies and glorifies those exact people He foreknows. The Greek word for foreknew means “to know beforehand" "fore-love" or "fore-appoint"; in Romans 8, Paul is saying the salvation of believers is rooted in God’s eternal, electing love “If God is for us, who can be against us?”

In Romans 9 Paul answers the question “How can the apostasy of Jews be explained if election is rooted in the eternal love of God?” The Old Covenant Jews partook in the sacraments (circumcision and Passover), and even lived in a theocracy, but Paul explains that the nationalistic Israel is not the TRUE SPIRITUAL Israel whom Paul is talking about in Romans 8, and later in Romans 9; it is the TRUE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL to whom God’s electing love is directed. Nationalistic Israel was the visible church, most of whom did not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19), but within nationalistic Israel, there was the true Israel: the invisible church, just as within our visible congregations, there is a mixture of non-believers (visible church) and the believers (the True Spiritual Israel).

The Invisible Church is ‘Abraham’s seed’ (Gal 3:26-29) and ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16); both Jews and Gentiles scattered worldwide (remember that the covenant promises to Abraham included children, in an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:1-14), and under the theocracy of Israel, infants were likewise circumcised). “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit”. Romans 2:28-29, clearly distinguishes between the outward visible church (who partake in the sacrament of circumcision[ii]) and the inward invisible church (who are circumcised inwardly by the Holy Spirit).

Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, born at the same time, to the same parents in the same location: they were “womb mates” (thanks R.C. Sproul). Although both womb mates were circumcised as they belonged to the visible church, Esau was NOT part of the invisible church. In Romans 9:13 God said “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”: a person does not belong to the true Spiritual Israel because of flesh/nationality (verse 8), a person belongs because of "God's purpose according to His choice... because of Him who calls" (verse 11). 

Scripture distinguishes between the visible church and the invisible church; the true church is not an organisation, but a royal priesthood consisting of God’s chosen people: 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION”.

In part one (my previous post), I showed how the Roman Catholic ecclesiology is illogical (with a lot of illogical satire). Here in part two, I provided an exegesis of key Biblical passages to prove Protestant ecclesiology is Biblical, which will provide the avenue for me to in part three conclude this series by Biblically detailing "The Five Solas of the Reformation"

(C), J. Williams, June 2011

[i] Roman Catholics, like Historic Protestants (me) believe in amillennialism. This includes the belief that there will be one coming of Christ, NOT two comings separated by a literal millennial kingdom.

[ii] Circumcision was replaced with baptism as the sign and seal of God’s covenant promise (see Acts 2). Circumcision was a bloody sacrament whereas baptism is a no-bloody sacrament.

---