Infant Baptism and Acts 2:39
March 28th, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
Perhaps the most common argument for infant baptism is found in the climax of the apostle Peter’s sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter has just set forth the redemptive work of Jesus (vv. 22–35) and proclaimed that He is both Lord and Christ (v. 36), and his Jewish listeners are cut to the heart, asking, “What shall we do?” (v. 37). Peter responds in Acts 2:38–39:
Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself (Acts 2:38–39).
The argument for infant baptism is found in Peter’s declaration that “the promise is for you and your children”—not just you, but you and your children. According to paedobaptists, the promise that Peter refers to in Acts 2:38–39 is the same promise that God made to Abraham and his descendants in Genesis 17:1–8. As Robert Booth explains:
This was a promise that [the Jews] would have heard of and talked about many times. Since they were now entering the new covenant era of the church, the question of their children’s relationship to the church would naturally have been on their minds. Being a Jew, Peter was certainly aware of their concern and immediately moved to address the issue. He assured them that the promise was still for them and their children. . . .
Therefore, writes Booth, “If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism.”
In addressing the meaning of Acts 2:39 and how it relates to infant baptism, it is helpful to consider three basic questions: What is the promise?; Who were the recipients of the promise?; and Who was baptized?
What Is the Promise?
In Acts 2:39, Peter says that “the promise” is for his hearers, for their children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord calls to Himself. Even though Peter does not specify the content of the promise here in this verse, his meaning was clear to his original hearers, for he had already referred to this promise several times in the earlier part of his sermon: (a) “I [God] will pour forth My Spirit” (v. 17); (b) “the promise of the Holy Spirit” (v. 33); and (c) “you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). This promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit and the salvation that accompanies Him.
This understanding of the promise is further supported by Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4. In Luke 24:49, Jesus speaks of the coming Holy Spirit, saying, “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Then, just before His ascension, Jesus commands His disciples “not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised” (Acts 1:4), a clear reference to the Holy Spirit.
But upon whom exactly will He pour out the Holy Spirit? To whom has He made this promise? This leads to the second question.
Who Are the Recipients of the Promise?
In Acts 2:39, Peter identifies three groups of individuals who are the recipients of this promise: (a) “you,” (b) “your children,” and (c) “all who are far off.” But Peter doesn’t stop there. Instead, he qualifies all three groups with the clause, “as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” In other words, to how many of you has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of your children has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of those who are far off has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those whom He effectually calls and draws to Himself in salvation. This includes Peter’s immediate hearers (“you”), succeeding generations (“your children”), and even Gentiles in distant places (“all who are far off”).
The Greek words translated “as many as” (hosos an) in Acts 2:39 qualify and limit the recipients of the promise to those whom God calls to Himself in salvation. Their use in Mark 6:56 is similar:
And wherever He entered villages, or cities, or countryside, they were laying the sick in the market places, and entreating Him that they might just touch the fringe of His cloak; and as many as [hosos an] touched it were being cured (Mark 6:56).
Not everyone was cured—only those who touched the cloak. Likewise, in Acts 2:39, not everyone is a recipient of the promise—only those whom God effectually calls to Himself. This is clear from verse 38 as well, for only those who repent in response to the gospel will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, in the very passage that paedobaptists hold up as an express indication of continuity, there is an express indication of discontinuity. After all, the promise is not for all of your children without exception (like the Abrahamic promise), but rather only for those whom the Lord calls to Himself in salvation.
As Paul Jewett notes, it seems that the paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo (“you and your children”) that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo (“and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself”). This is so much the case that I would estimate that most of the time I have heard or read a paedobaptist quote Acts 2:39 as an argument for infant baptism, he leaves off the final clause—“as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”
In no way, then, does Peter single out the children of believers as recipients of the promise apart from the effectual calling of God, and in no way does he identify them as automatic members of the New Covenant and therefore rightful recipients of baptism as the sign of that covenant. What, then, if anything, does this passage indicate about the recipients of baptism? This leads to the third question.
Who Was Baptized?
After his declaration in Acts 2:39, Peter continues by exhorting the people of Israel to repent and be saved (Acts 2:40), and “those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). What strikes me here is Luke’s description of those who were baptized: “those who had received his word.” Not “those who had received his word and their children”—just “those who had received his word.” Period. Only those who repented in response to the gospel were baptized.
In the end, the corresponding parallel that paedobaptists are looking for between Genesis 17 and Acts 2 is simply not there. Consider the differences: In Genesis 17, the covenant is “between Me and you and your descendants after you” without qualification (v. 10); but in Acts 2, the promise is for you and your children, but only for as many of you and your children as the Lord shall call to Himself (v. 39). In Genesis 17, the eight-day-old males are to be circumcised (v. 12); but in Acts 2, only those who repent are commanded to be baptized (v. 38). In Genesis 17, infants are circumcised; but in Acts 2, only those who received Peter’s word are baptized (v. 41). The account in Acts 2 actually provides better support for believer’s baptism than it does for infant baptism.
* * *
Note: The following was adapted from chapter 3 of A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.
I am enjoying these posts immensely! Thank you. I am attending a great PCA church right now and am considering becoming a member. The infant-baptism issue is really the only sticking point. However, its the only church in my area where the doctrines of grace are taught, with God’s Word preached expositorily.
I can overlook the paedo-baptism issue in this PCA church, but I cannot overlook the “free-will”, easy-believism services that saturate every baptist church in my area.
Thanks again for these posts and I look forward to seeing thoughtful replies from both sides of the issue.
This is a very helpful post. I am a member of a wonderful PCA church, although I disagree with the practice of infant baptism. It has always frustrated me to hear Peter’s words on Pentecost truncated to serve the paedobaptist cause.
When Peter says “to you and your children,” I hear an echo of Matthew 27:25, when the people say of Christ, “His blood be on us and on our children.” In the verses immediately preceding “to you and your children,” Peter proclaims that the man they crucified has been exalted by God as Lord and Messiah, which plunges the listening throng to despair, so that they cry out, “What shall we do?” Perhaps many who were there on Pentecost had been there on Good Friday shouting “Crucify!”
Peter’s words, “the promise is to you and your children,” proclaim to the people that the curse they called down on themselves and their children on Good Friday is no barrier to the Gospel promise: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Steve wrote:
“I am attending a great PCA church right now and am considering becoming a member.”
Steve ,I can relate to your concerns, I left a Baptist (SBC) Church and worshipped at local Presbyterian (PCA) Church and loved the people, the soteriology, the ecclesiology, but had concerns with the infant-baptism and their eschatology. We found an independent Baptist local Church that teaches the doctrines of grace but it took us awhile.
We didn’t leave the PCA church because of the infant-baptism but their strong stance on amil eschatology. We could join the church as premil but could not serve as deacon, elder, or teach.
We are still great friends with them but have moved on.
Keep looking.
Matt Waymeyer continues building a strong case for believer baptism!
I also think that his argument is strengthened when one considers Matthew 27:25. After Pilate maintains his innocence in Jesus death, the Jewish crowd responds by saying, “His blood be on us and on our children!”
What hope do they have in light of their guilt in the crucifixion of the Messiah? “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The curse that they called upon themselves and their children has been removed by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit for all who repent and believe in Christ. What a glorious promise that was fulfilled on Pentecost!
Steve I understand where you are coming from on the issue of being in a easy believism, free will,emergent pushing baptist church.I attend one my self. But I have been looking into some Presbyterian churches around my area. I have found some that really put a high focus on doctrine and theology and exposit the word,but I can’t overlook the paedo-baptist thing. I know of some EFCA churches in my area and I have heard that some of this churches can be pretty good so I am going to give them a shot.
I am a member of an SBC church that embraces the doctrines of grace, but we are clearly in the minority. I see a trend in the above posts. Those who have a high opininion of God’s word are finding themselves increasingly at odds with the SBC and are moving to PCA churches since reformed baptist churches are hard to find. I see a steady decline in the SBC since it can’t decide what it believes and has forgotten it’s history. I can more easily overlook the infant baptism issue than I can bad soteriology. Most proponents of infant baptism that I have come across don’t believe it actually saves a child. I agree with Matt on his critique of the practice. I just go where the scripture leads, what else can we do?I see movement away from the SBC and maybe a coming schism.
WOW, you can over look the infant baptism issue? I wouldn’t tolerate easy-believism OR infant baptism.
I quote from the Presbyterian church on the issue of infant baptism.
Baptism signifies:
1. the faithfulness of God
2. the washing away of sin
3. rebirth
4. putting on the fresh garment of Christ
5. being sealed by God’s Spirit
6. adoption into the covenant family of the Church
7. resurrection and illumination in Christ
An unconscious infant has none of these things, whether you get them wet or not.
What is worse, deceiving men to make a choice to be saved, or deceiving an unconscious infant, who goes through his or her life believing they were faithful to God, their sins were washed away, they are born again, sealed by the spirit and so on. Jesus said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His church, so instead of tolerated the teaching of damnable heresy, I would find one of the Lord’s true churches.
Doug, you are attacking a straw man. The keyword is “signifies.” Baptism is a sign (a visible action that represents what God will do inwardly) and a seal (that God promises to do that inwardly granted that it is united with faith) (Rom. 4:11).
WCF XXVIII
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;…
Secondly, if you follow your argument out logically, you must conclude that in your framework every adult that has ever been baptized has all 7 of those things you listed. But let me ask you a question. What happens to those that were baptized and yet later commit apostasy? Did they have all 7 of those spirital blessings and then lose them?
How do you account for all of the various New Covenant warning passages such as John 15:5-6, Romans 11:11-24, Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-30?
If the argument is that in order to have a sign of the covenant you must be conscious of it, then you must argue that God messed up in having a sign of the covenant (circumcision) given to infants in Genesis 17:10-11. After all, it is by believing that one is made righteous (Gen 15:6) why circumcise infants?
When the hearers (Jews) of the sermon in Acts 2:38-39 heard “you and your children,” would they have thought “Oh that doesn’t mean like how we did it before with our children in the covenant, but it means we kick them out of the covenant. Here, my son is circumcised but don’t you dare baptize him!” In fact, historically the Jews circumcised AND baptized the babies of Gentiles who converted. I just want to know the verse were it kicks children out, where it says “Though you are accustomed to giving the sign of the covenant to children and even baptizing them, stop now.” But instead we have the opposite in Acts 2:39, and even instruction telling us children of even one believing parent are sanctified (covenantal language) in 1 Cor 7:13-14. Denial of baptism to infants is a theological invention of the 1520s.
Daniel,
I would be attacking a straw man had I made it, but to avoid the straw man, I went to the source, the Presbyterian church, and I went to their article on infant baptism and that is were I found THEIR teaching on infant baptism. And how am I caricaturing infant baptism in any other light than what the presbyterian church says it is. It’s not a staw man, but their teaching, so if baptism is what they say it is, then they are wrong for baptizing babies.
As you said, baptism is a visible sign, but for who? Where is one single instance of infant baptism, or baptism for a sign of what God WILL do, but what has already done? When one confesses Christ as their saviour, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.–Mat 3:6-8; Mat 3:11; Act 8:36 - 37 and every other example of baptism in the bible.
There is no allusion to baptism in Romans 4:11, and if the text did teach baptism, you have proved my point. Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised, and the children of Abraham are the children of faith, not works. Gal 3:6-7. It wasn’t the child of the flesh, but the child of promise that inherited the blessings. Infant baptism is a work of the flesh, but the true children of Abraham are they which are of faith. How could you ascribe the work of infant baptism to faith?
What efficacy? Are you attributing baptism to salvation and eternal security? It seems that you are since you questioned false professors losing what they gained at baptism. My question is what happens to the infants who die dead in trespasses and sins? What happened to the “efficacy of Baptism”. The rest of the article that you failed to quote, “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost” What are you telling the infants you baptize, rather what will you tell them when they are old enough to know what is going on?
John 15:5-6, Romans 11:11-24, Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-30
And I am building straw men?
You said
“if you follow your argument out logically, you must conclude that in your framework every adult that has ever been baptized has all 7 of those things you listed.”
Only if you believe what the presbyterian church teaches, which I do not. Baptism doesn’t was away sin, give the new birth, or secure adoption in the family of God. It is a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no problem with the biblical teaching of believers baptism as a sign of what God has done for them.
Infant baptism makes two baptism. One faith, one Lord and two baptisms? One for the righteous unto repentance, (the only biblical example you will find) and the second for unregenerate, unconscious infants unto works.
This practice gives no glory to God, Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,. Infant baptismt does no good for the child, but to the contrary gives the child a false sense of security and entitlement, and when and if the child is saved, they are unable to follow their Lord in baptism, or follow the only example of baptism in the NT, which is believers baptism. They can’t do as Peter said “repent and be baptized”.
“How do you account for all of the various New Covenant warning passages such as John 15:5-6, Romans 11:11-24, Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-30? ”
As has recently been argued over on Triablogue, warnings are part of God’s means of keeping the elect. The question in discussing the validity of a warning is “if you fall away, are you really lost?”
Just like a sign saying “keep back from cliff edge”. If every person in the world keeps back, is the warning then useless? Hardly. In the same way, if every one of the elect reads Hebrews and says “Lord keep me from that” and he does, does that make the warning useless? Hardly.
Daniel,
It is true that baptism signifies our identifying with Christ. But since it does mearly “signify” it does not have any salvific power. Also, if someone is baptised, baptism not effecting salvation in any way, it is possible for that person to fall away. Baptism is an outward confession of what the Holy Spirit has done on the inside. It does not save a man. Just as a false profession of faith is possible, so also false baptism, as a form of a profession of faith, can be possible.
Baptism is also a sign of obedience to Christ’s command to repent and be baptized. However, like a profession, obedience does not effect salvation. Obedience is the natural outflow of a heart controlled by the Holy Spirit, therefore, we would expect one who has been saved to be baptized. However, it is possible for someone who has not truly been saved to be baptized.
You said to Doug, “Secondly, if you follow your argument out logically, you must conclude that in your framework every adult that has ever been baptized has all 7 of those things you listed.”
That is not true, because baptism does not bring about any of those seven things. Not one. Baptism, as a signifier, cannot save anyone. It is possible for someone to be baptized, thereby signifying all seven of those things, and yet not truly be saved.
Seems to me like infant baptism only ensures a hotter hell for those who are infantly baptized but not saved as compared to a run-of-the-mill reprobate.
Daryl-
What value was circumcision? Does it seem to you that circumcision only ensures a hotter hell for those who are circumcised as infants but not saved as compared to your run of the mill reprobate?
Man, I wish the Bible addressed that question. Oh wait, it does!
“What is the value of circumcision? Much in every way! To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God…”(Rom 3:1-2)
God wishes to work using a people, not just individuals so God’s covenant people are the normal conduit for His grace. Ok. But wait. What about the people in the covenant people, those individuals that do not believe? Does Paul say anything about that?
“What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar.” (Rom 3:3-4)
Sola Deo Gloria - God is given glory even by the lies of men (Rom 3:7) i.e. those circumcised or baptized and have no faith. Paul’s answer is much the same as in Romans 9: This is how God works, do you wish to tell Him it is a bad plan? Do you wish to tell God he should save everyone who does, or has done to them, a work? Is this not Paul’s warning throughout Romans?! NOT BY WORKS! Is the sign of the covenant a sign of your obedience? No, it is the “faithfulness of God.” God has set up a dispensation of His grace by the preached word and in the context of Baptism and the Eucharist. The point of them is to establish and feed God’s covenant people, not to be a ground of the person’s righteousness. Instead now, they are now the grounds by which to condemn Presbyterians who preach salvation by faith alone. Sorry, they forgot the work of baptism. So from now on they should preach: By faith alone, plus [full immersion, believer’s - and you better really mean it or it doesn’t ‘count’] baptism. Remember the weight of Romans comes down against those trying to gain righteousness from a work of the law.
Jared,
Wow, that last bit is quite a stretch. I admit I vastly overstated things in my last comment, but really, who is condemning Presbies? And who is saying that baptism is a work required for salvation? Nobody here.
Couple points on your last bit. As far as immersion goes, that’s what the word for baptism means. The greek word was transliterated, not translated. There are greek words for sprinkled and baptizo is not it.
You’re imagining things if you think Presbies are the only ones who teach salvation by faith alone…and, incidentally, you’re provided no arguement for why baptism in the NT always follows repentance…no infants repent?
Try and understand the baptist position…please.
Jared,
What I was after in my comments about a hotter hell is this idea that apostates are judged more severely than your average pagan, because they know and still walk away.
Infant baptism imagines that the kids are being brought into covenant with God and so ultimately every baptized kid becomes either a believer or an apostate. Never just an average pagan.
The trouble is, baptism doesn’t save, it doesn’t even make salvation more likely. I symbolizes salvation to onlookers and proclaims to God and the world that we are his.
The kiddies aren’t necessarily his. So where does that leave them? In a Christian home where the gospel is taught to them, in the hopes that in the teaching God will create faith in them and bring them into covenant with himself. But wait, that’s the same situation unbaptized kids of believing parents are in. So what has baptism accomplished for them? Well, nothing really, it doesn’t put them into relationship with God, it only ups the ante should they not believe.
That’s what I meant about hotter hell. It seems to me that the downside of infant baptism is that we create imagined apostates where pagans would suffice and the upside is…we no more up than the kids in any other Christian family.
I wasn’t intending to knock Prebies on that (though I think they’re wrong) on get at the issue of this idea that God has established a covenant with a bunch of unbelievers because their parent had them baptized.
“…we no more up than the kids in any other Christian family.”
Should say “…well, they have no more advantage than the kids in any other Christian family.”
“… on get at the issue…”
Should say “…I was only trying to get at the issue…”
Don’t me how those happened…my mind…odd…a little unpredictable…help…me…
1) Baptizo means wash. When the Pharisee invited Christ to dine with him, and he was amazed at how Christ did not “wash” / “baptizo” before dinner. Was the Pharisee amazed that Christ did not fully immerse himself? Did Jews fully immerse before every meal?
In Mark 7:3-4, when the Pharisees take issue with the disciples not washing “nipto” The next time a word is used for the same action in verse 4, the word for wash is “baptizo.” Again, to go to market did you have to fully immerse? Seems like a lot of water required in the desert just to go to market and dine.
Baptizo is related to bapto, the word used in the LXX of Lev 14:6, to dip one bird in the blood of another bird that was killed - an obvious type for Christ’s blood. You could not have had enough blood from one bird to immerse the other bird.
2) I’m saying that Believers Baptism by immersion has become a grounds for boasting, a sign of your obedience rather than a testament to God.
3) As a symbol for our salvation, are we communicating that God waits to respond to us, or that God comes to us in our inability, in our infirmity and shows HIS FAITHFULLNESS to his people. We know love, not because we first loved God and He responded, but because He first loved us and came to us.
4) You said baptism “proclaims to God and the world that we are his.” You may not like it, but God claims your children. Those kids are His! I would go as far as saying your statements as principles are UNBIBLICAL! To say that God does not claim as His people those who do not have observable faith is contrary to the explicit teaching of God himself.:
Gen 17:7-8 - And 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…I will be their God.”
To say no one can be in the covenant or belong to God unless they have observable faith is unbiblical.
5) We have a mixed covenant in either a Baptist community or a traditional Christian (Reformed/Anglican/Lutheran) community. Christ tells in the parable of the wheat and terres (Mark 13) and the net catching both type of fish (Matt 13). Baptizing as a an adult does not negate this.
Jared.
So are you saying that baptism saves or that heredity saves?
(By the way, the wheat and the tares and the fish net represent the world, not the church)
“To say no one can be in the covenant or belong to God unless they have observable faith is unbiblical. ”
Uh…try James…
(No I now why my wife says “You can’t just say it’s not biblical. You need to back it up!!)
First Christ saves.
Second, the language of kingdom is the context of the wheat and terres and the net cast, so: no it is not the world.
Finally, you say I need to back up my statement that the bible talks about people being in the covenant without observable faith. Did you read Gen 17:7-8 or 17:10-12? I’ve cited both. Does an eight-day old have observable faith? As a principle, saying one cannot be in a covenant and be without faith is unbiblical. I have already cited the biblical support that is explicit and undeniable. I’ll give you some help here where your argument should go: Baptists cannot affirm that covenant membership cannot in any time include those without faith. The good Baptist theologians say this is true in the Old Testament, but that the New Covenant is different. There, if you can support that, we have a conversation, otherwise you merely contradict Scripture.
Jared Nelson
You said,
“In Mark 7:3-4, when the Pharisees take issue with the disciples not washing “nipto” The next time a word is used for the same action in verse 4, the word for wash is “baptizo.” Again, to go to market did you have to fully immerse? Seems like a lot of water required in the desert just to go to market and dine”
There are two different words used, so yeah, it means two different things, pretty simple. Do you believe in the verbal inspiration? Are we to rely on what we think seems correct or what the scripture says? The Holy Spirit inspired the text, and baptizo was used, so whether it “seems like a lot of water” or not, that is what it says. Every credible Greek scholar, that doesn’t have an agenda, will say that baptizo means dip or immerse.
You said, “Baptizo is related to bapto,” True, they agree in original meaning, but does that restrict baptizo to mean anything else but what the word was derived from?
Let’s look at Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip,
Ok, lets replace the word baptized with sprinkled.
“and when he was sprinkled, he continued with Philip”
Was Simon ground into find sand and sprinkled on the ground? A minister will not sprinkle a baby, they sprinkle water upon a baby.
Ok, lets replace the word baptized with poured.
“and when he was poured, he continued with Philip”
Was Simon melted into liquid, placed into a bucket and poured on the ground? A minister will pour upon a baby, not pour a baby.
Ok, lets replace the word baptized with immersed.
“and when he was immersed, he continued with Philip”
I think that it is plausible that Simon was immersed. You are poured upon, sprinkled upon, but you are immersed. Baptism is something to a person, not on, or upon a person. There is no other way that it will fit, in any instance in scripture, in type or principle.
So unless your are immersing the baby, you are not really baptizing them anyway, just sprinkling water on their head.
Jared,
You said, “To say that God does not claim as His people those who do not have observable faith is contrary to the explicit teaching of God himself.”
In the sense that God owns the entire world, I would agree with you. However, in the sense that only those who are God’s children will be in heaven, one cannot be called a child of God who is not saved.
Doug, I will briefly respond to your comments:
“As you said, baptism is a visible sign, but for who? Where is one single instance of infant baptism, or baptism for a sign of what God WILL do, but what has already done? When one confesses Christ as their saviour, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.–Mat 3:6-8; Mat 3:11; Act 8:36 - 37 and every other example of baptism in the bible.”
I didn’t mention in my previous comment, but I believe from Scripture that there is a link between circumsion in the OT and baptism in the NT. From the OT, my example would be of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham’s circumcision was a sign of what God had done, Issac’s of what God will do granted he responds in faith. In the NT, the standard practice of household baptisms. Whether infants were in the house or not isn’t the point. If there are OLDER children who are baptized, that gives even greater proof for household baptism.
“There is no allusion to baptism in Romans 4:11, and if the text did teach baptism, you have proved my point. Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised, and the children of Abraham are the children of faith, not works.”
Yet Issac was a true child of Abraham (of faith) and was circumcised with the sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.
“Infant baptism is a work of the flesh, but the true children of Abraham are they which are of faith. How could you ascribe the work of infant baptism to faith?”
I see no biblical grounds as to why it is a work of the flesh. If that is true, then circumcision in the OT was a work of the flesh and had nothing to do with faith. We know from the OT and NT that that is quite the contrary!
“What efficacy? Are you attributing baptism to salvation and eternal security? It seems that you are since you questioned false professors losing what they gained at baptism.”
No, I believe you are misunderstanding me. You are asserting that only true believers are to be baptized on the basis of their profession and thus what the Holy Spirit has already done. If you believe that every baptized adult is elect, then I was simply asking what happens to those who commit apostasy?
“Baptism doesn’t was [sic] away sin, give the new birth, or secure adoption in the family of God. It is a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. ”
I agree. It’s not efficacious but it is a sign and symbol of those very things of the faithfulness and work of God.
“Infant baptism makes two baptism. One faith, one Lord and two baptisms? One for the righteous unto repentance, (the only biblical example you will find) and the second for unregenerate, unconscious infants unto works.”
This argument is not cogent nor biblical. You agree that adults are baptized who turn out to be false professors! By virtue of that fact, that creates “two baptisms” in your framework as well! You baptize elect adults and you baptize non-elect adults. In your words “one for the righteous and the second for the unregenerate.” So you might not want to go down that road.
“This practice gives no glory to God, Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him:”
Actually it gives great glory to God because it focuses on His covenant faithfulness to be a God to the parents and their descendents after them. Why did God threaten to put Moses to death for not circumcising their child? Secondly, by virtue of the fact that not every baptized adult is elect, then does the practice always give glory to God?
“Infant baptismt [sic] does no good for the child, but to the contrary gives the child a false sense of security and entitlement, and when and if the child is saved, they are unable to follow their Lord in baptism, or follow the only example of baptism in the NT, which is believers baptism. They can’t do as Peter said “repent and be baptized”.”
1) It reminds the child of God’s faithfulness to be their God and that they need to respond in faith.
2) It does not give a false sense of security. Isaac couldn’t ride the curtails of Abraham’s faith his whole life. He needed to profess on his own.
3) Your quote from Acts 2 was in the context of a crowd of Jewish men, so it doesn’t negate the possibility for infant/household baptism.
Lastly, can you provide me with a text that shows a child of a believing parent who grows up later and is baptized after making a profession of faith?
“Seems to me like infant baptism only ensures a hotter hell for those who are infantly baptized but not saved as compared to a run-of-the-mill reprobate.”
Well baptism ultimately is a sign of judgment. Either the judgment falls upon Christ if you keep the covenant or the judgment falls upon the child who breaks the covenant. The New Covenant has both its blessings and cursings. Either way, it’s covenantal.
Daniel,
I am not sure what you mean when you say, “Well baptism ultimately is a sign of judgment.” Could you explain this statement? Baptism is not a covenant, it is a profession of faith.
Daniel, one of the things that baptism pictures is judgment as either God pouring out His wrath on a substitute (Christ) or on the person themself (Luke 12:50, 1 Cor. 10, 1 Peter 3:18-20). So it is a solemn moment when an infant is baptized because it pictures just what I described. Either the child will profess faith in Christ and God’s judgment will have fallen upon Christ or it will fall upon them for failure to trust in Christ.
Both the sacraments in the OT and the NT ultimately point to Christ. Christ is our passover, our circumcision, our supper, and our baptism. Just as Christ was “cut off from the land of the living” and underwent a circumcision of judgment (Col. 2:11).
Regards,
Daniel
ON MODE OF BAPTISM:
Let me adopt your technique of using your gloss as a replacement. Let’s use Heb 9:10-13 for it:
Heb 9:10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings [baptisma - your definition: full immersion], …
… [13] For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:10-13 describes sprinkling as a baptisma. Which works better: Various full immersions, including sprinkling…does the gloss fit? How about my gloss - wash? Various washings, including sprinkling.
Let me ask you: why do you believe that Baptism means immerse in all times and places used? Requiring baptism to only mean immerse to fit your tradition requires you to believe, as noted earlier, that Jews had to fully immerse before every time going to market and dining in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4. Do you force this gloss because a Baptist told you this? You say every credible scholar says it can only mean immerse and dip? Is Bruce Metzger a scholar? He and the UBS lists wash. Is Strong a scholar? He lists wash. Is William Mounce a scholar? He lists wash. So I must ask you: is your faith in the English gloss given to you, or in how the Bible actually uses the term?
How about how the term has been understood in regards to mode in history? The earliest document on actually performing baptism – The Didache- allows in Chapter 7, verse 3 that one may be baptized by pouring. The maddening thing for Anabaptists is to admit if their interpretation of baptism is correct that the early church abandoned true teaching even while the apostles were still around (if one takes the early dating of the Didache). Also, one must say these Koine-Greek native speakers and students of the disciples were wrong as they did not have an English-speaking American Baptist around and refuse a different gloss than immerse.
BACK TO DEFINITION OF BAPTISM:
To your questions of my belief in inspiration: I fully believe in plenary inspiration. The question is if your tradition is forcing you to perform Eisogesis (putting your own meaning into the text) on the word baptism. In fact, the definition given by many people here (“baptism is a profession of faith”) is unbiblical. Can you cite this definition? You assert it, but on what authority? It has no basis in the Scriptures or tradition before the 1500s. Why not look to the Bible for your definition rather than your tradition? There is one ready at hand in Paul. Can we trust Paul to teach us that baptism is “The circumcision of Christ”? Do we have an understanding of circumcision in order to understand what Paul is saying? Perhaps we should understand and study circumcision before giving our own human definitions like “profession of faith” and instead to the language of Paul. [I suggest Gen 17:8-12 for the sign and Deut 10:6 for the spiritual reality the sign signifies]
On God’s claim on children. Would one allow that though you are disciples of Christ, you may be doing exactly the same thing as the disciples did in Luke 18:15-17? People were bringing infants to Jesus to touch. Why? They had no ability to understand what was happening, and these people want Christ to bless them? The word for touch here often has connotations of blessing and literally means “attach to” and is used when people desiring healing elsewhere in Scripture. But Jesus says the children should be brought to Him because the kingdom of God belongs to them. I suppose this gets into what people believe the kingdom of God to be, but if we say it is the church presently, then these children of believers belong in the church. This, again, is not saying they are saved, but belong to the kingdom and the covenant community.
Daniel,
You said, “So it is a solemn moment when an infant is baptized because it pictures just what I described. Either the child will profess faith in Christ and God’s judgment will have fallen upon Christ or it will fall upon them for failure to trust in Christ.”
I do not see the connection between baptism and the judgement you described (falling on Christ or the person). It will be that way whether they are baptized (whether as infants or adults) or not. It is salvation itself that determines whether the judgement will fall upon Christ or upon the person, not baptism. I still do not see the connection.
If we are saved, then the judgement was already on Christ, having paid our penalty in advance. If we are not saved, then we will bear our own judgement. Whether or not we are saved does not determine whether Christ bore our judgement, because it is the other way around. Whether or not Christ bore our judgement determines whether or not we will be saved.
You mentioned 1 Peter 3:18-20, but I would like to draw your attention to verse 21. “The like figure whereunto (speaking of Noah) even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” Here we have a description of what baptism does/is. This verse says that baptism saves us. It then goes on to explain the saving that baptism does. It is not saving as in “putting away of the filth of the flesh” which is salvation in the ultimate spiritual sense. It is saving in the sense that it is an “answer of a good conscience toward God” which as I said is a profession.
Believers baptism an invention of the 1500’s?
Mat 3:6-8 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Rom 6:3-5 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:36-37 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Ok, there is believers baptism prior to the 1500’s. Now your turn.
Please, could anyone give me an example of infant baptism or anyone having water sprinkled upon them in the New Testament without mentioning the word circumcision, because they are not the same thing. If I asked you to show me infant circumsicion, would you quote a verse about baptism, or would you give an example of circumcision.
You are ‘proving’ infant baptism without giving any evidence. You said “Why not look to the Bible for your definition rather than your tradition?”
I offer you the same challenge as I have answered you already, not with tradition, but with scripture.
Yes, baptism and circumsion are mentioned together in the NT, but where does it mention baptism without faith? You failed to quote the rest of Col. 2:11-12 the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
How can that verse apply to a sprinkled infant. Only if you spritualize the scriptures.
Go to the word, show me infant baptism. One example is all I ask, any infant being baptized, or baptism being anything other than belivers baptism. Or if you can’t give me that, give us a historical account of a baptism of an infant in the first century. If not in the first, how about the second? The reason circumsion is harped upon is because no one can give an example of infant baptism, if you could, you surely would have by now.
Doug, I would gladly give you an example of infant baptism mentioned in the New Testatment: 1 Corinthians 10:1-2:
“For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”
The children were with the forefathers as they passed through the sea.
Doug, the more proper focus is not necessarily on infants as it is on households. The question that I would ask you, is where did this whole idea of households come from? If you do justice to ALL of the biblical data, you will see that God dealt with households through His various covenant dealings through redemptive history. Why is it that 5 of the 9 mentionings of baptism in the NT involve the household?
Can you provide me with a text that shows a child of a believing parent who grows up later and is baptized after making a profession of faith?
Why is the household principle not clearly abrogated in the NT? If God applied His covenant sign to believers and their children in the OT and no longer in the NT, where is this principle abrogated? Why is it that not a drop of ink was spilled concerning the covenant sign when it was being done the same way for over 2000 years? Why did the Apostles write concerning cermonial rituals to show they have been abrogated while nothing was mentioned about the sign? Wouldn’t a 1st century Jew have wondered why his child was included in the covenant on Tuesday and excluded on Wednesday?
Is the nature of the New Covenant more inclusive or more exclusive?
Daniel,
You understand that it was figurative. Just like the baptism of sufferings of James and John, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The figure was to the circumstances, not the act itself. They went down in the Red Sea, the cloud covered them, thus immersed in the cloud and sea. They came out the other side, as followers of Moses. They were ” baptized unto Moses” not God.
Jesus said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Not unto Moses. So the believer follows the example of Christ (being baptized not as an infant, but as an adult). The beliver comes from the waters of baptism a follower of Christ.
And even if this were the same thing, that would make Moses an Anabaptist for re-baptizing the circumcised, if circumcision and baptism are the same, which they are not.
I also think you understand that I am looking for an example of an infant baptized in the New Testament.
Daniel,
You said, “‘For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’ The children were with the forefathers as they passed through the sea.”
It says that the forefathers were baptized. This passage does not even mention children. The forefathers were all under the cloud. The forefathers all passed through the sea. The forefathers were all baptized into Moses. You are assuming that the infants participated in the baptism, but the passage does not say that. In fact, the passage does not even hint that. The passage gives a subject: forefathers, and a predicate: were baptized. You are adding another subject. Try again.
As far as the mentioning of being baptized with their household, you are again assuming that the household contained infants. It is interesting that those verses that some use to support infant baptism also say that they believed with their household.
You asked for someone to provide an example of a child of a believing parent who grows up later and is baptized after making a profession of faith?
Here are some verses about believer’s baptism. Note the ones who are being baptized.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Notice that here they were baptized because they had “received the Holy Ghost as well as we.”
“Believers baptism an invention of the 1500’s?”
Believers-ONLY baptism an invention of the 1500’s.
Every Christian believes that believers not previously baptized who come to faith should be baptized. The question is the status of their children.
“It says that the forefathers were baptized. This passage does not even mention children.”
So should we not baptize women either? It doesn’t mention them but assumes them too. But men are heads of the household, thus they stand in for their household.
Can you give me any examples of women eating the Lord’s Supper? How many women were at the feeding of the 5000 in Mark 6:44? The Bible doesn’t mention women or infants for numbers a lot does it? The purpose of the text is partially to establish who the witnesses that can testify to the truth of the accounts to those alive at the times. Men are usually cited as they are the only ones able to testify in a court of law.
The point of Acts 10:47 is that Gentiles are now included. That believers are baptized does not negate that their children were baptized. Methodists baptize believers, this does not mean they do not baptize their children as well.
Jared,
You said, “So should we not baptize women either? It doesn’t mention them but assumes them too.”
How do you know who it assumes? Don’t you think that it is a shaky theology that relies on assumed assumptions?
Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
Notice that this verse does not include children or infants in telling who was baptized.
You said, “Can you give me any examples of women eating the Lord’s Supper? How many women were at the feeding of the 5000 in Mark 6:44? The Bible doesn’t mention women or infants for numbers a lot does it?”
No, it does not, but that is irrelevant. The verse says that the forefathers were baptized. How often do you hear women or children referred to as forefathers?
You said, “That believers are baptized does not negate that their children were baptized.”
Yet it doesn’t say that their children were baptized. It says that those who were baptized were those who had received the Holy Spirit/believed Philip’s teaching/gladly received his word. This would indeed say that their children were not baptized. Since the infants cannot do any of these things, and only those who did these things were baptized, then the children were not baptized.
You have yet to show me a verse in which an infant was baptized. I would be careful about holding to a theology that relies heavily/solely on assumptions.
“How often do you hear women or children referred to as forefathers?”
Your very question is asinine. Did women or children come with the forefathers? (such as Miriam mentioned in Exodus 15?) If yes, then you have the intended point made there. You derided me for using the word “assume.” You assume baptism means “immerse” or “profession of faith” with no Scriptural backing. I assume women came with the forefathers through the waters because the Scriptures say so.
“You have yet to show me a verse in which an infant was baptized.”
If a male head of household (or even the wife as 1 Cor 7:14 makes clear) could decide whether the children should be baptized, we should expect to see mention of household baptisms. And we do in Acts 16:15 and other places in Acts.
This whole thing is frustrating because you want me to define baptism without reference to circumcision, yet Paul defines baptism with reference to circumcision (Col 2:11-12). That is like asking me to define atonement apart from Christ. My conscience is bound to Scripture. Baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” (Col 2:11), circumcision is “a sign of the covenant” (Gen 17:11). You’ve got me, I cannot define baptism apart from Scriptural descriptions.
I don’t know where to go from here really. The doctrine of baptism is inseparable from the doctrines of the covenant and circumcision. If you don’t think an understanding of circumcision matters when speaking about baptism, tell Paul when you get to heaven you don’t like his connection of baptism to circumcision. Until you can accept Paul’s categories, you leave yourself unbound to the Scriptures and can believe what you want about baptism.
Jared,
You said, “Did women or children come with the forefathers?”
I’ll assume that the women and children were also the subjects of this baptism. The passage still says that they were baptized into Moses. I’ll ask the question a different way: you have yet to show me a verse in which an infant was baptized into Christ’s death, and raised to walk in newness of life.
You said, “If a male head of household (or even the wife as 1 Cor 7:14 makes clear) could decide whether the children should be baptized, we should expect to see mention of household baptisms.”
I think you already know that you cannot interpret 1 Cor. 7:14 that way. If you do, then there are now two ways to be saved. One is to personnally trust Christ as savior, the other is to marry someone who is saved. You know that this is not the case, so mentioning this verse in defense of infant baptism is not a legitimate defense.
You are also assuming here that in a household baptism there were even infants in the household.
Lets look at Acts 16:15 since you mentioned it.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
What you are assuming here is 1) that there were infants present and 2) that those baptized were not converted with Lydia. As far as point one, the Ethiopic version of this verse says that she was baptized with all her men (meaning all her servants). Is it not possible that none of her family was present? If it is, then don’t you think it is a strech to build a theology on assumptions? As far as point two (and point one) those who were baptized in her house were later referred to as brethren. Act 16:40 And they went out of the prison, and entered into [the house of] Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Here, in this very verse you use to support your view, we will assume that baptism is the circumcision of Christ. If it is, then you have a major hole in your boat, because the verse says that this circumcision of Christ is in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. It is also being buried with him, and rising with him through the faith of the operation of God. An infant cannot do this.
I have no problem with Paul’s connection between circumcision and baptism (which is more pointing out the similarities than it is a connection), but you do, because in Paul’s connection, he says that it involves putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. Even if baptism was related to circumcision, you would have to admit, from this verse, that the circumcision of Christ was not for infants.
Daniel Chaney,
All of your examples of baptism fail to answer my question.
Acts 2 was in the context of Jewish men.
Acts 8 in the context of men and women.
Acts 10 in the context of Gentiles.
I will ask again. Please provide me with a text, where parents are baptized as new converts, but not their household, and the child is then later baptized once they are older and are able to make a profession of faith.
Again, you keep asking, “Where is there mention of an infant being baptized?” I keep responding, the real question is, why is their a general practice of household baptisms in the NT? Where did this household principle come from?
Why are the children of believing parents in Ephesians 6 referred to as saints in Ephesians 1? Why does Paul give commands to the husband, wife, children, and slaves in Ephesians 5-6? Because, that was the common household of the day!
Whether infants were present in the household baptisms is irrelevant. What gives greater proof for household baptism? An infant who is baptized based on the father/mother’s profession or a 10 year old who is baptized based on the father/mother’s profession? An older child would actually support the principle of household baptism even more!
Again, why is the NT silent on the nature of children in the New Covenant? If there is a radical change from the Old to the New, why was not one drop of ink spilled? How was it that infant baptism had spread everywhere by the 2nd century without any objection?
Cordially,
Daniel
I would be interested to see your exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14 rather than dismissal of it. It almost sounds like you don‘t believe 1 Cor 7:14 has meaning. The terms holy, unclean and sanctified have a covenantal significance, not soteriological. If 1 Cor 7:14 refers to covenantal sanctification and holiness washing (like Ex 19:10) we can say it does not mean there is salvation by marriage. If we deny the covenantal connection, since it refers to children, then I would like to see you get out of that exegetically.
I believe the preponderance of the evidence points towards infant baptism being established from the inception of the church with the parallels from Acts 2:38-39 and Gen 17:8-12, the explicit connection of circumcision and baptism by Paul in Col 2:11-12, and the teaching that there is a relationship of the child of a believer to the covenant as seen in 1 Cor 7:14. Since we have gotten to a point of one saying “oikos” includes children and the other not, we need to acknowledge that the Scripture is not a matter of our private interpretation and is not dependent on that private interpretation for its meaning or intention (2 Peter 1:20). Thus, we must see if our interpretations are borne out in the immediate context of history and those in closer contact with the disciples, the language and the practices.
History :
First, the context of the NT: The immediate context of baptism was Jewish baptism, which for proselytes meant that children under the age of 13 were baptized. [Babylonian Talmud (Ketuboth 11a)] This is the backdrop for Acts 2:39. If they are used to baptizing children, why does Peter confuse them by saying the promise is for them instead of saying, by the way: stop baptizing infants?
Second, the early church: We might ask if anyone speaks about whether Acts 2:38-39, the household baptisms and 1 Cor 7:14 taught that infant baptism was the practice of the apostles given to their followers. Such a testimony exists in any that speak on the subject:
In the early 200s, Hippolytus, summarizing the apostolic tradition for preservation, wrote: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).
All who speak of infant baptism in referance to the apostles attribute the practice to them (Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Origen).
The problem with history for the Anabaptist is insurmountable without assuming conspiracy theories since there is NOT ONE Church Father who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism.
No section of the Church, at any time viewed infant baptism as something that was created after New Testament times.
You insist on your question about a text that shows an infant baptism (though no one has answered the question of “Can you provide me with a text that shows a child of a believing parent who grows up later and is baptized after making a profession of faith?” but lets move on), yet a few questions I have:
Another question asked by a brilliant man, Francis Schaeffer was “Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded.”
Now I have heard Baptists speculate, such as 300s, or 200s or 150s, but this has no historical document on which it can base this on, which gives it no historical validity. So:
1) When did infant baptism start?
2) Why is there NO resistance if it is novel?
3) We have tens of thousands of pages of the Early Church addressing disputes, why was infant baptism not even disputed?
4) Where do the Scriptures establish an age for baptism?
Jared,
In response to your first question, it is irrelevant when infant baptism started, because I know of many false practices that started long before Christ came to the earth. So assuming that infant baptism is a false practice, it is not necessary to give a start date.
Second question: Again, it might not have been necessary to address this problem, because again, assuming it was a false practice, it would have been widely known that Christ commanded them to repent and be baptized. The very fact that Christ never commanded anyone to baptize their children is hard for the paedo-baptist to overcome.
Third question: refer to question #2
Fourth question: There is never an age for baptism. Baptism takes place after repentance, whenever that happens. If their is no age for repentance, then we would not expect to find an age for baptism, would we?
You said, “I believe the preponderance of the evidence points towards infant baptism”
Except for one thing: the Bible never, ever, anywhere mentions that an infant was baptized.
You said, “…the explicit connection of circumcision and baptism …”
These are similarities, not a connection.
You said, “This is the backdrop for Acts 2:39. If they are used to baptizing children, why does Peter confuse them by saying the promise is for them instead of saying, by the way: stop baptizing infants?”
Refer to the original post above. That is my reply.
Daniel,
You said, “I will ask again. Please provide me with a text, where parents are baptized as new converts, but not their household, and the child is then later baptized once they are older and are able to make a profession of faith.”
I find it hard to believe that out of all the baptisms mentioned in the NT that not one of those people had believing parents.
You said, “I keep responding, the real question is, why is their a general practice of household baptisms in the NT? Where did this household principle come from?”
Refer to the post dealing with household baptisms as used in defense of infant baptism.
You said, “Whether infants were present in the household baptisms is irrelevant.”
If it is irrelevant, then no one should ever use household baptisms as proof for infant baptism. If it doesn’t matter whether there were infants present, then why do so many people point to those verses in defense of infant baptism?
You said, “What gives greater proof for household baptism? An infant who is baptized based on the father/mother’s profession or a 10 year old who is baptized based on the father/mother’s profession?”
Again, I will ask you to show me a passage in which this takes place. I have not seen a passage in which anyone was baptized based on anything besides their own profession of faith.
Before we go any furthur, I would like to ask both Daniel and Jared: what do you believe that infant baptism does for the one being baptized?
Ok, perhaps we are throwing out history and merely granting that baptism was never denied valid if given to infants before the Anabaptists.
Please interpret 1 Cor 7:14. Also, show me someone before 1500 that shares that interpretation. Otherwise I should be a Baptist and believe that marriage saves my wife and child by birth, rather than places my child in the covenant family.
Where are children kicked out of the covenant? Children of believers were in covenant under the OT, where are they kicked out?
Where are they told to stop baptizing infants as they had done in with proselytes?
When the OT and Jewish background is considered, the silence is an argument against the Baptist position, not for it.
“Is the nature of the New Covenant more inclusive or more exclusive? ”
I interrupt this discussion to offer this one small point…
The New Covenant is, by far, more exclusive, and more inclusive.
And the “by far” applies in both cases (although not as far with inclusive).
Exclusive: The Old Covenant included all Jews, all of them. Even though Paul says in Romans “not all Israel, are Israel” and clearly spells out in Galatians that Abrahams children are to be reckoned through the promise, not through blood-lines.
Inclusive: The Old Covenant applied to Jews only…with some exceptions. The New Covenant applies to all peoples.
The New Covenant applies to “all those who the Lord will call.”
The fundamental difference between the post above and the Covenantal understanding of baptism is this:
The article does not properly distinguish between promise and fulfillment. It confuses the two. The Covenantal view of baptism properly distinguishes between promise and fulfillment.
Here’s what I mean: The post begins by asking the question “What is the promise?” And it answers: the promise is the giving of the Spirit. Therefore, when the next question “Who are the recipients of the promise?” is asked, the question implied is “Who are the recipients of the promise?” By not distinguishing between the two (i.e. promise and fulfillment), the post is able to clearly demonstrate that the promise is only for true believers.
But Covenant theologians would distinguish between:
(1) The giving of the Spirit as the fulfillment of the promise
(2) The promise itself.
Therefore, everything that follows the first question “What is th promise?” cannot speak to the Covenant view, because it is based on a different pre-understanding. Covenant theologians would affirm that of course the New Testament teaches that only true believers receive the Spirit. But that is not to be equated with who receives the promise itself. The promise itself is the covenant. The covenant is fundamentally made up of parties, promises, and stipulations. Believers and their children have always been parties to the covenant. As parties, the promises are constantly held out to them on condition of meeting the stipulation (Before anyone cries foul about the idea of conditionality, go read John Owen on this issue. He understands every covenant to include stipulations or conditions. That in no way militates against sovereign grace). If the stipulation (i.e. faith) is met, then the covenant member receives the fulfillment of the promise in his life, viz., the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the Covenantal understanding.
ICor 7:10-21
If there is a woman that is married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever desires to stay with her, great. The context is not God justifying the unbelievers by the believing spouse. Nor is God promising by their baptism they will be justified (baptism is not hinted anywhere in this passage). In their marriage relationship, they are not required to leave the unbeliever. The unbelieving husband is not unclean to her wife, no more than her children are unclean. But if the husband doesn’t want to stay with the believing wife, let him go, she isn’t under the bondage of a unbelieving spouse. No where is baptism hinted, no place is justification mentioned. But what is the desire? That the family stay together, the wife may lead the husband to saving faith in Christ. The wife isn’t to push her husband out because he is ‘unclean’.
God has distributed every man as the Lord hath called, so let them walk. 1Co 7:19-21 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. The point is, what ever walk you are in, whether married, employed, free or slave, to follow God in that walk that he has put you in. In your family or job. Paul is speaking to believers in how they should live, because they asked him “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.”
I truly do not understand how you fail to see the similarity between your infant baptism, and what Paul preached against in Romans 2. How can you say that baptism puts the infant in a covenant relationship to God, when that is was the Jews believed their circumcision did for them. They believed that they had some advantage over the Gentiles because of their circumcision. But God is not a respecter of persons. Infant baptism gives them not one advantage over an infant that is not baptized. They are not justified before God, they are not made his children, they are not holy and clean before God in the slightest degree. What profit is infant baptism if you break the law? Nothing, unless of course you believe in baptismal regeneration. So that I can understand you position, please tell us the advantage infant baptism gives to the child? Covenant has been mentioned over and over, what does that covenant provide for the unbeliever?
You can’t show that John the Baptist baptized babies, the example of our Lord, he wasn’t a baptized infant, you can only assume infants were baptized, it wasn’t preached against in the NT because it hadn’t existed yet. You are coming to this subject with your covenant theology bias, and if it doesn’t fit into your theology, then it must be wrong.
Jared,
You said, “Where are children kicked out of the covenant? Children of believers were in covenant under the OT, where are they kicked out?”
I never said that they are kicked out. I just said that they must rely upon their own salvation, not that of their parents.
You said, “When the OT and Jewish background is considered, the silence is an argument against the Baptist position, not for it.”
So are you saying that it is indeed silent?
You have not answered my main question. What do you believe that infant baptism does for the one being baptized?
As far as my interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:14, here it goes. When the verse says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, we must realize that there is more than one meaning to the word “sanctify.” If we interpret this word in this verse in the full doctrinal sense of sanctification, we will find that there is more than one way to be saved. Since sanctification comes after justification, we would assume that since the verse says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified that they are also justified. Now we have two ways to be saved. One is through faith in Christ, the other is through marriage to one who has faith in Christ. Obviously, this is not the meaning of the word sanctify in this verse. The Bible has another meaning for the word “sanctify” and that other meaning is “to set apart.” According to R.C. Sproul, “If two pagans marry and one becomes a Christian, the non-believer is placed in a special relationship to the body of Christ for the sake of the children. That does not mean that they are redeemed.” If we understand that there is more than one meaning of the word sanctify, then we will understand that this verse is not saying that there is more than one way to obtain salvation, but rather that the unsaved spouse and children are put in a special relationship to the body of Christ simply from being in proximity to a believer. They are “sanctified” in this way.
[You said, “Where are children kicked out of the covenant? Children of believers were in covenant under the OT, where are they kicked out?”
I never said that they are kicked out. I just said that they must rely upon their own salvation, not that of their parents.]
We are agreed. The children were not kicked out (and are in covenant), and must attain faith for the promise to be fulfilled in themselves. Welcome to covenantalism!
[What do you believe that infant baptism does for the one being baptized?]
Places them in covenant with God. Covenant is not equivalent to salvation, but meeting the requirement of the covenant (faith) ensures salvation.
Your quote does help explain 1 Cor 7:14. Sproul is great on that verse and I affirm the children are put into a special relationship to the body of Christ. This relationship is that they are in covenant, though they may or may not have faith yet, and thus may or may not be regenerate yet. You can have non-regenerate members of the covenant, because covenant membership is not the same as salvation, but the condition of salvation is faith and awaits the gift of faith in the child.
[Covenant has been mentioned over and over, what does that covenant provide for the unbeliever?]
Already answered on my post on Romans 3 above on 01 Apr 2008 at 4:26 pm.
“I just said that they must rely upon their own salvation, not that of their parents.”
The bible never taught that Isaac was saved because of Abraham’s faith.
I think it may be worth considering what was God’s original intention in regards to circumcision, covenant children, etc. and WHAT the practice had become by the NT (for example, insisting salvation was due to being a physical descendent of Abraham). Just because the Pharisees and Judaizers of the NT interpreted the OT in this way DOESN’T mean it was what God’s original intention was.
“Exclusive: The Old Covenant included all Jews, all of them. Even though Paul says in Romans “not all Israel, are Israel” and clearly spells out in Galatians that Abrahams children are to be reckoned through the promise, not through blood-lines.”
Consider my previous post concerning the difference between God’s original intent and the thinking of the Pharisees and Judaizers in the time of the NT.
As far as Matt’s argument concerning households in a few posts back dealing with Acts 16, I find a fundamental flaw in Greg Welty’s logic:
“…it would be quite absurd for a family of Gospel rejectors to be so excited about a family member’s salvation.”
Welty makes the assertion that there are only 2 responses to the Gospel: 1) Genuinely repent and believe or 2) Genuinely reject the Gospel with disdain. If this were the case, then he has a good point. However, he fails to address another response: Those who receive the Gospel with joy but that joy is temporary and their faith was not genuine. Outwardly it looks like they have receieved the Word even though inwardly they are really rejecting the Word. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 13 concerning the various soils shows that the Word may fall upon rocky soil that receives the Gospel with joy but later proves that it was not genuine.
So it is very possible that that could be the case. Whether he rejoiced with them that he believed or they rejoiced with him that he believed, it is quite possible that they could rejoice and still not be saved!
Ultimately, there is no middle ground between receiving or rejecting Christ (Luke 11:23), but from our viewpoint, a person can surely appear to have received Christ but inside still reject Him.
Jared,
I asked, “What do you believe that infant baptism does for the one being baptized?” you replied, “Places them in covenant with God. Covenant is not equivalent to salvation, but meeting the requirement of the covenant (faith) ensures salvation.”
Then everyone in the world is in this covenant. Meeting the requirement of the covenant (faith) is possible for those who were not baptized as infants. This covenant is not only for those who are baptized in infancy, but is available for all people, both Jews and Gentiles. According to you, infant baptism enters an infant into a covenant that it is already in.
You said, “We are agreed. The children were not kicked out (and are in covenant), and must attain faith for the promise to be fulfilled in themselves. Welcome to covenantalism!”
Not exactly, because that covenant (as mentioned above) is for all people, including children, baptized or not. That is what I mean when I say that children are not kicked out of the covenant.
Since this covenant is for all people, baptized as infants or not, then what does infant baptism do for the one being baptized?
Wow. You just invented a new theological concept: a universal covenant. I’m speaking of the Biblical idea of God sanctifying a people unto Himself. If one wants an example of this, The Old Testament is a great place to look. There is the people of Israel, set apart by God, maked by circumcision. Not everyone in the covenant is regenerate or saved, but this is the context by which God normally mediates His grace. The normal process for God’s saving grace is in the context of this community, within the covenant community converting its unregenerate members and bringing in the outsider into this covenant community.
You want an answer to the question of what baptism does for the unregenerate person who is subjected to it, the answer is found by looking at this community as explained in the Scriptures. Paul answers the question in Romans 3, as I posted above, as mentioned before, though for your benefit I will paste it and recapitulate at the bottom of this post. The question “what is the benefit of the sign of the covenant in the NT?” is the same as the question “what is the benefit of the sign of the covenant in the OT?”:
Paul addresses that question, partly because the issue is still relevant:
“What is the value of circumcision? Much in every way! To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God…”(Rom 3:1-2)
God wishes to work using a people, not just individuals so God’s covenant people are the normal conduit for His grace. Ok. But wait. What about the people in the covenant people, those individuals that do not believe? Does Paul say anything about that?
“What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar.” (Rom 3:3-4)
Sola Deo Gloria - God is given glory even by the lies of men [i.e. those circumcised or baptized and have no faith - Rom 3:7]. Paul’s answer is much the same as in Romans 9: This is how God works, do you wish to tell Him it is a bad plan? Do you wish to tell God he should save everyone who does, or has done to them, a work? Is this not Paul’s warning throughout Romans?! NOT BY WORKS! Is the sign of the covenant a sign of your obedience? No, the sign of the covenant in Paul’s words is the “faithfulness of God.” (Rom 3:3) God has set up a dispensation of His grace by the preached word and in the context of Baptism and the Eucharist. The point of them is to establish and feed God’s covenant people, not to be a ground of the person’s righteousness. Baptism brings one into this community, it does not at the time require God to impart faith or salvation, but places the person under the promise, which is bestowed if the stipulation of faith is met, which even itself is a gift. Glory be to God!
Jared,
If baptism is what circumcision was, then since only those who were circumcised were in the covenant, then only those who are baptised can be in the covenant now. What is the covenant? In your words, the covenant is “not equivalent to salvation, but meeting the requirement of the covenant (faith) ensures salvation.” So in my understanding of your belief, the covenant is this: if we have faith we will be saved. However, if only those who are baptized can be in this covenant, then only those who are baptized can be saved. If you view baptism as basically the same as circumcision (in covenant effect), then only those who are baptized can be in the covenant described above, and therefore, only those who are baptized can be saved.
I asked what infant baptism does for the one baptized, and I think your answer was this: “Much in every way! To begin with, they are entrusted with the oracles of God.” But I do not understand how infant baptism puts the one baptized in a position above one who is not baptized, if neither are saved. Also, both have the same potential of being saved, so again, what does infant baptism do for the one being baptized, since it does not give them any extra chance at salvation.
Think of the question in the manner in which I keep answering it: What did circumcision do for the unregenerate infant under the Old Testament covenant? Placed them in the covenant community. One cannot be placed in covenant individually, but only within God’s people. Christ came to give His life for His bride, not individuals unconnected with each other.
What does the covenant community do for the believer? I share your concern with understanding what Paul is saying in Romans 3, what does that mean: “Much in every way”? Thus we must explore the relationship between salvation and the visible covenant community,
We must see that the covenant is not equivalent to salvation. We see this illustrated in the problem the Pharissees had was not understanding that covenant membership is not the same as salvation. (no I am not calling you a Pharissee). Here’s the lesson: One may be in the covenant community and be unregenerate. (Also, one could be elect apart from the sign of the covenant and the visible covenant community), yet salvation normally takes place in the context of the covenant community. How? the stipulation of the promise must be met. The problem with the Pharissees was that they thought just being in the covenant by circumcision was enough. But in fact Christ did not say the Pharissees did too much (though they did add to the Law) but too little. Christ said we must have righteousness beyond the Pharisees, the righteousness of faith.
The Westminster is careful to maintain the distinction when it states:
“Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
In the New Covenant, briefly given in Acts 2:38-39, the stipulation is believe. But the Pharissees used the Law to gain righteousness rather than meeting the stipulation of faith and missing that the faith they were to have was in the coming seed, Christ. (See John 5)
We face some similar problems today. Baptism puts you in the covenant community. This only benefits you if you meet the stipulation of belief. Why enter the community if you already believe?
1) First, you believed by benefit of the community. First we are commanded to enter the community (be baptized) and many may already be in the community. Again, we normally cannot attain faith outside of exposure to, or participation in the covenant community as faith comes by hearing, and the preached word is the possession of the church, the covenant community. “We cannot have God for our Father without the Church for our Mother.” I think the ministry of the word by the church unto salvation is what the early church meant by this saying.
2) Do we not have much more to learn after believing? “Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not soon depart from it.” We are constantly under instruction and undergoing sanctification in the community. Sanctification has no individual context, only in community. The benefit of being in the community is having the promise extended to you and being in an environment were teaching and instruction in faith occurs.
Again, as Jared has been explaining and I have been asserting, I think this goes back to asking the question: what was God’s original intention in the OT covenant community and what had its interpretation and practice become?
Jared,
You say that baptism places us in the covenant community, yet there is no benefit of the covenant community (as you describe it) that is not available to someone outside the covenant community. I do not think that you are understanding what I am ultimately saying when I ask “what does infant baptism do for the one being baptized?” Perhaps I should take it a bit farther. According to you, the only benefit of infant baptism is that it places one in the covenant community. Taking my question a bit farther, what does membership in the covenant community accomplish? You have admitted that it does not ensure salvation, and that it does not even make it more likely? So of what benefit is such a community? Certainly salvation is offerred to those outside that community, because you have admitted that this community is not equal to the elect. Hopefully I have made my question a little more clear.
*Sigh*
Copy…Paste, insert:
1) First, you believed by benefit of the community. [First reason we should enter the community is] we are commanded to enter the community (be baptized) and many may already be in the community. Again, we normally cannot attain faith outside of exposure to, or participation in the covenant community as faith comes by hearing, and the preached word is the possession of the church, the covenant community. “We cannot have God for our Father without the Church for our Mother.” I think the ministry of the word by the church unto salvation is what the early church meant by this saying.
2) [The second reason we should enter the community is] Do we not have much more to learn after believing? “Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not soon depart from it.” We are constantly under instruction and undergoing sanctification in the community. Sanctification has no individual context, only in community. The benefit of being in the community is having the promise extended to you and being in an environment were teaching and instruction in faith occurs.
…
Now, if these answers do not suffice, the other Daniel has made the question very simple: look at your questions and ask them with Daniel’s question in mind: “what was God’s original intention in the OT covenant community and what had its interpretation and practice become?” Answer every question you asked of Israel. If you think that God is illogical for not making the covenant equal to salvation [that there must be a circumcision of the heart regardless of the outward circumcision], that is something you are going to have to wrestle with in reading the Old Testament.
Jared,
From my understanding of your last post, you believe that the covenant community is the visible church. I should have asked you that sooner. Now your comments make a little more sense (as far as me now knowing where you are coming from).
You said that the first reason we should be in the community is because Christ commanded us to be baptized, “we are commanded to enter the community (be baptized). Do not forget, the command was to REPENT and be baptized.
At this point, my understanding of your belief is that the covenant community is the church, and baptism is the sign of membership. Is that correct?
Indeed, the covenant community is the visible church. [remembering that within the covenant community is the invisibile church made up of the truly elect]
Baptism is often mentioned in proximity to “Repent” or “believe” variously in the narrative of Acts, especially since repentance is a vital part of believing. An important aspect of covenant membership is meeting the stipulation for receiving the promise, namely faith. We need to both accept the sign of the covenant (baptism) and meet the stipulation of covenant membership (faith). But the sign may precede or follow faith. When Abraham believed, faith preceded the sign of the covenant (circumcision). When Abraham circumcised Isaac, the sign of the covenant preceded faith. Both were covenant members, yet both received the promise extended to them in the covenant when they met the stipulation of faith.
Jared,
I agree with most everything you said. In fact, I agreed with everything up until you said, “But the sign may precede or follow faith.” I believe that the sign of faith can only follow a profession of faith. That is where we differ on the subject of infant baptism. You believe (in my understanding) that infant baptism is simply proclaiming the sign of the covenant ahead of time.
You said, “When Abraham believed, faith preceded the sign of the covenant (circumcision). When Abraham circumcised Isaac, the sign of the covenant preceded faith.”
Do not forget that we are dealing with two different covenants. The covenant that circumcision entered one into is different than the covenant that salvation enters us into now. The covenant entered upon circumcision was that they would be God’s chosen people. They would be God’s people, and He would be their God. In the New Covenant, we are told that we will also be God’s people, but in a different sense: we will be God’s children (in the old covenant, they were simply God’s people). This is the new covenant. What, then, enters us into this new covenant? You have admitted that baptism does not make us God’s children, so baptism cannot be what enters us into this covenant. Salvation does make us God’s children, so I believe that salvation, and salvation only, is what enters us into the new covenant. Then what is the role of baptism? I believe that it is an act of obedience to the command to repent and be baptized. It is also done in public. Putting these two together, baptism is a public act of obedience. This is basically a profession of faith.
If you could show me an example of someone being baptized prior to a profession of faith, then I would believe in infant baptism. If, however, you cannot show me such an example, then I trust that you would change your belief. I hope that I have explained my position clearly.
Jared,
I thought a little more about this, and on a side note:
It would be more consistent with your believe (that baptism is today what circumcision was in the old testament) to say that we should be baptized on the eighth day after our spiritual birth, or salvation. If you think about it, if birth into the old covenant was physical birth, and birth into the new covenant is spiritual birth, then it would make more sense, for your belief, to baptize a person eight days after they have been born again. What are your thoughts?
“Do not forget that we are dealing with two different covenants. The covenant that circumcision entered one into is different than the covenant that salvation enters us into now. The covenant entered upon circumcision was that they would be God’s chosen people. They would be God’s people, and He would be their God. In the New Covenant, we are told that we will also be God’s people, but in a different sense: we will be God’s children (in the old covenant, they were simply God’s people).”
We would actually have to disagree with your premise that there are two different covenants. There is one over-arching covenant of grace that was made with Abraham and was renewed in the New Covenant, and is in the process of being fulfilled (already, but not yet). Afterall, God promised to Abraham that it would be an everlasting covenant. A cursory reading of Galatians would show that the promise given to Abraham has been consummating over time. Again, I believe you are interpreting Scripture in light of what the understanding of the covenant had become in the NT instead of what God’s original intention was.
“It would be more consistent with your believe (that baptism is today what circumcision was in the old testament) to say that we should be baptized on the eighth day after our spiritual birth, or salvation. If you think about it, if birth into the old covenant was physical birth, and birth into the new covenant is spiritual birth, then it would make more sense, for your belief, to baptize a person eight days after they have been born again. What are your thoughts?”
I think you are confusing the visible/invisible church again. Only God knows who are the true members of the invisible church. It would be impossible to baptize a person 8 days after “they were born again” because we don’t know when that occurs, unless, your asserting that we can??
Daniel,
You said, “It would be impossible to baptize a person 8 days after “they were born again” because we don’t know when that occurs”
Rather, it would be eight days after “professing” to be born again. You are correct, just because someone professes to be born again does not make them so.
You said, “There is one over-arching covenant of grace that was made with Abraham and was renewed in the New Covenant, and is in the process of being fulfilled (already, but not yet).”
The covenant that was made with Abraham was that God would give them the land to possess it. This was an everlasting covenant with Israel, not the church. There is another covenant with the church. You are assuming that the church is (in essence) Israel, which would naturally lead you to believe that their is one covenant. However, we see two different covenants. The one made with Abraham was that his seed would inherit the land. This was indeed an everlasting covenant, which leads me to believe that there is a future for Israel. The New Covenant was made with the church, and is a promise that we will be God’s children, and inherit eternal life in God’s kingdom. These are not the same covenant. If there was but one covenant, which is it? Is it the one in which God promised that Israel would inherit the land (and they would be His people and He would be their God), or is it the one in which God promised that if we believe, we will be His children and inherit eternal life? Correct me if I am wrong, but according to your belief (I think), only one of these covenants is biblical.
You said, “There is one over-arching covenant of grace that was made with Abraham and was renewed in the New Covenant”
So do you believe that when we are baptized, we are placed in the covenant of the children of Israel (as I explained above)? Perhaps I should ask you, in what way do you believe the covenant was renewed?
“The one made with Abraham was that his seed would inherit the land. This was indeed an everlasting covenant, which leads me to believe that there is a future for Israel. The New Covenant was made with the church, and is a promise that we will be God’s children, and inherit eternal life in God’s kingdom. These are not the same covenant.”
The true heir of the Old Testament promises is not ethnic Israel, but only Christ, the one Seed of Abraham.
Gal 3:16
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.
As far as the land promise you mentioned:
Take a look at I Kings 4:20-21 and II Chronicles 9:26.
Also, Heb 11:9-10
By faith he [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
If you take this promise literally, you have this problem: this geographical possession will one day end; The old earth will one day melt with a fervent heat to make way for the new (II Pet. 3:10); and as soon as this dissolution of the old earth takes place, (including the geographical regions promised to Abraham), a literal fulfillment of the land promise becomes impossible.
You also alluded to the fact that the New Covenant is internal while the old is external. One thing I don’t understand, though, is why new external signs (baptism, communion, the Church herself) were introduced if everything that happens in the New Covenant is internal. From what you’re saying, it seems as if there would no longer be a visible ‘people of God.’
Is it the one in which God promised that Israel would inherit the land (and they would be His people and He would be their God), or is it the one in which God promised that if we believe, we will be His children and inherit eternal life? Correct me if I am wrong, but according to your belief (I think), only one of these covenants is biblical.
I would encourage you to read (if you have a little time), Nathan Pitchford’s tract on what the Bible says about the people of God. The online version is free.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/pdfs/pog_003.pdf
Daniel,
You said, “One thing I don’t understand, though, is why new external signs (baptism, communion, the Church herself) were introduced if everything that happens in the New Covenant is internal.”
Baptism, communion, and the Church itself are external signs of an internal covenant. The New Covenant is internal, but has external signs. One example of this is sancification, or the bearing of the fruit of the Spirit. When we are saved (internal) we begin the process of sanctification. During this process, we start bearing the fruit of the Spirit (external). This is just one external example of an internal covenant.
You said, “The true heir of the Old Testament promises is not ethnic Israel, but only Christ, the one Seed of Abraham. Gal 3:16 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.”
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you explain what you mean by this? I agree that it does not say, “and to offsprings.” But since we know that salvation is available to those who are not of Abraham’s seed, then this cannot be the same covenant, because the subject of each covenant is different. The difference is that the first covenant was for Abraham’s seed only, the second covenant is for the Gentiles also.
“I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you explain what you mean by this?”
What I’m getting at is that these promises made to Abraham was fulfilled by his seed, Christ, and these promises are not to be interpreted in the dispensational understanding of a land promise down the road.
“But since we know that salvation is available to those who are not of Abraham’s seed, then this cannot be the same covenant, because the subject of each covenant is different.”
I assume when you say Abraham’s seed you are referring to his physical seed. Again, you’re thinking like a 1st century Pharisee (not intended as a put-down). Salvation has always been by faith and the true children of Abraham have always been spiritual children. Paul attacks this pretty thoroughly in Romans 9 and Galatians 3 because over time the Jews completely missed the meaning of God’s dealings and turned spiritual inheritance by spiritual means into a spiritual inheritance by physical means.
“The difference is that the first covenant was for Abraham’s seed only, the second covenant is for the Gentiles also.”
What about Ruth? What about Rahab?
I would have to strongly disagree with this last statement.
Galatians 3:6-9
Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Daniel,
“What I’m getting at is that these promises made to Abraham was fulfilled by his seed, Christ”
So are you saying that the former covenant is done with? Completely finished by Christ, and no longer in effect?
“the true children of Abraham have always been spiritual children.”
You are speaking of spiritual seed and I am speaking of physical seed. There is a difference. The land was promised to the physical children of Israel, while salvation is promised to the all the spiritual children of Abraham. That is what I meant when I said, “The difference is that the first covenant was for Abraham’s seed only, the second covenant is for the Gentiles also.” The promised land was only promised to the children of Israel. I know what you are saying about us being of Abraham’s seed because we are saved, but that is not what I am talking about.
I see the Old Covenant as this: God’s promise to Israel that if they would remain faithful to Him, following all the laws, then they would be His people and He would be their God. They would also inherit the land promised to Abraham.
I see the New Covenant as this: God’s promise to us that if we believe in Christ, following His laws, then we will be the children of God. And we will inherit eternal life.
This is my understanding of the Old and New Covenants. What is your’s? I think we had better start there, as this discussion could easily go from infant baptism to es