The Locus of the Baptism Debate
Most of us who grow up in a Christian household are around believer's baptism. It is often a question that is not often debated until one meets someone who differs on the issue. The two positions concerning the proper recipients of baptism are credobaptists which is "confessional/believer's baptism" and paedobaptism which is "infant baptism." The arguments for credobaptism seem pretty straight forward; everyone in the New Testament is baptized after a profession of faith. But paedobaptists hold their view of infant baptism from their specific brand of covenant theology.
Paedobaptism in a Nutshell
I can't possibly due justice to the paedobaptist logic in this short article, but I can do my best to summarize it. In short, paedobaptists contend that throughout the "covenant of grace" stemming back to Abraham believers and their children were given the sign (Gen 17). That is why often the argument for New Covenant baptism for paedobaptists starts way back at the inauguration of the Abrahamic Covenant.
The main correlation paedobaptists find is that baptism and circumcision correspond equally. The sign of entering covenantal relationship with Yahweh is now baptism in place of circumcision. Both sides acknowledge that circumcision was intended to show Israel that they need to be circumcised in the heart (Deut 30:6; Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3) which refers to regeneration or "the new birth" (John 3). Credobaptists do acknowledge that both are initiatory rites into God's covenant, but they differ on who make up the covenant family.
The Locus of the Debate
In all my research I can trim it down to the issue at hand. The issue revolves around whether the New Covenant people of God are all believers or if it is a mixed community like Old Covenant Israel. Paedobaptists contend that the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 fits into the not/not yet paradigm of inaugurated eschatology, and temporarily the New Covenant has a mixed community. Kent Muhling summarizes the paedobaptist reading of this passage.
"In order to understand how Presbyterians interpret this passage, you must understand how they understand the nature of the new covenant. Specifically, I am referring to the fact that the kingdom of God which was inaugurated by Jesus has not yet reached its full consummation, so that the new covenant has not yet come to its complete fulfillment. [...] This is how the Presbyterians see things: Jeremiah's prophecy does not describe the age we live in today - this strange, unexpected, already/not yet continuation stage. Rather, it describes the consummation stage. The final fulfillment of his prophecy won't take place until the consummation, when Jesus returns. In the mean time, we need teachers because not everyone does know the Lord, and therefore covenant can be - and is - broken."
So, the question remains on whether Jeremiah's passage refers to current reality or whether it is to be all believers only at the consummation. Stephum Wellum wrote a fantastic article entitled "Relationship between the Covenants" in Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, and he had this to say on the issue.
"The new covenant results not only in a structural change, but also in the nature of the covenant people. Jeremiah signals this in two ways. First, he contrasts the new covenant with the old, 'It will not be like the covenant I made with your forefathers...because they broke my covenant' (Jer 31:31). But, secondly, he tells us why this covenant will not be like the old due to a change in the very nature of the covenant community. Under the new covenant all will know the Lord, not in a mediate but immediate fashion, and all will have the law written on their hearts and experience the full forgiveness of sin. In fact, it is these last two aspects of the new covenant which highlight the incredible change that is anticipated and which is now a reality in the church." (pg. 144, emphasis original)
The New Covenant Promise of the Spirit and Forgiveness
Joel 2:28-29 predicts the day that the Spirit will be poured out on "all flesh," and Peter in his Pentecost sermon tells the audience that this prophecy had come true in their midst (Acts 2:17-21). The Spirit being "poured out" is what secures covenant faithfulness that was not present in the Old Testament. This likens back to the verbiage of Jer 31: "they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them" (vs. 34) which illustrates that when the New Covenant is inaugurated it will bring an end to the Old and all will know the Lord and experience the forgiveness of sins.
Passages such as Heb 8-10; 2 Cor 3; Luke 22:20 illustrate that the promised New Covenant of Jer 31 is a reality now with the sacrificial death of Christ. While the now/not yet paradigm does exist in the New Testament, we can be sure that the members of the New Covenant are now all believers. That is why my quote from D.A. Carson teaches that the local church should epitomize heaven or the "universal church," because in heaven, as in the New Covenant church, all know the Lord.
Conclusion
The debate has divided Christians for centuries. We can rejoice that our Presbyterian brethren hold to justification by faith alone and that we share in the same race sharing the same Gospel. However, how we interpret the recipients of the New Covenant sign of baptism is important and shouldn't be diminished. It is a glorious sign that we have been buried and raised with our risen Lord!
"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin." (Rom 6:3-7)
Apr 16th 2007 
15 Comments 
Apr 17th 2007
Just a couple of notes, in case it helps understand the other view. First, pedobaptists generally hold that very young children are in fact capable of saving faith. Some of the usual examples are John the Baptist responding to Jesus while still in the womb, Jesus saying that unless people receive the kingom like a little child they shall not enter it (holding up very young children as a positive example of receiving not by works but by grace), warnings against causing the little ones to fall away, and other making a general background of the assumption that children can belong to the covenant, can receive grace, can have faith -- long before they can put words to any understanding.
Next is that it may well beg the question about whether all Scriptural baptisms were "believers baptisms" in the sense of people old enough to speak for themselves, as sometimes it's recorded that entire households were baptized.
But mostlly it's disturbing, from the view of a pedobaptist looking at credobaptists, that people assume their children are unsaved and apart from God's grace, that the simple faith isn't really faith yet ...
Take care & God bless WF
Apr 17th 2007
@Weekend: Thanks for your input. While credos wouldn't disagree that a younger person can become regenerate they would emphasize proof of saving faith/spiritual fruit to be extended the sign of baptism.
I think the "household" baptisms in the NT are not definitive one way or the other, but based on the multitude of texts speaking to believer's baptism, as any systematician would say, is that the clearer passages interpret the less-clear passages.
I don't know of any credo who would have an opinion that you state in your last paragraph.
Apr 18th 2007
Chris,
Good article. I think you are right in your analysis of the locus of the debate. Most credo-baptists, as you said, will center their argumentation on the fact that every clear NT example of baptism follows a confession of faith. The problem with this argument is that, while it is helpful and gives clear exemplary warrant for the practice to be followed in like cases for the church today, it does not provide any example to be followed for the case in question: what do we do with the children of believers. If we had a clear NT example for this situation, the debate would be effectually over. But as it is, we are forced to bring other scriptural data to bear on a question which is not explicitly addressed in the bible. And certainly, the strands of evidence we must employ have ultimately to do with the nature of the New Covenant, and the quality of its members.
In this light, the most substantive credo-baptist argument hinges on Jeremiah 31:31-34, which asserts a difference between old and new covenants that has ultimately to do with universal purity within the covenant membership. If the new covenant differs from the old in this respect, then how do we justify the bestowal of the covenant sign upon those who have not given sufficient evidence of covenant faith?
But even at the outset, this reasoning is fraught with difficulties. For instance, the New Covenant is established with those whom the Lord calls, in sets composed of adult believers and their children (Acts 2:38-39); the possession of the Kingdom, which is shorthand for participation in the New Covenant, is attributed to certain infants by our Lord himself (Luke 18:15-17); and in fact, we are taught that God considers infants of adult believers to be “holy,†which would certainly qualify them as “pure†members of the covenant (I Corinthians 7:13-14). So then, even given the necessity of pure covenant membership, how are we to say that infant children of believers are any less qualified in this regard than adults having made a profession of faith? It is certainly not as though either of these qualifications are unerring marks of genuineness, when human judgment comes into play. Any evangelical credo-baptist would have to admit that many adults who received baptism upon the confession of faith have turned out to be imposters who will bear their eternal judgment, just as many who have received infant baptism may turn out to be illegitimate children. In short, the ideal of pure covenant membership cannot be perfectly held up in our choice of the subjects of baptism, no matter how diligently we attempt to make the reception of the sign correspond to the reality of the thing signified. Recognizing this, we must labor to do the best we are able, and realize that the ultimate outcome is in God's hand. And we have just as much reason for assuming covenant legitimacy among the children of believers as we do among adult professors.
But returning to Jeremiah 31, we meet with more difficulties. The forcefulness of the argument derived from this passage, for a credo-baptist position, largely dissolves upon the recognition of three truths:
1.The Covenant made with Abraham was likewise cast in unequivocal terms of pure membership.
When the sign of circumcision was given to Abraham, it was connected to an unqualified promise, “I will establish my covenant...to be God to you and your seed after you†(Genesis 17:7). That God is our God is the heart of the covenant promise; and this promise, which necessitates covenant purity, is given without qualification to Abraham's children, throughout their generations. The principle of divine election comes into play here, as it does in the New Covenant – but both are cast in terms of pure membership, both include signs indicative of faith and regeneration, and in the former, at least, the talk of purity does not negate the legitimacy of the bestowal of the sign upon one who is yet unable to express his faith. In other words, if you see paedo-baptism as a problem in light of the New Covenant description in Jeremiah 31, you have an identical problem at the inauguration of the Abrahamic Covenant; but this problem you are not permitted to circumvent by restricting the covenant sign to adults. A different answer must be found; and whatever this answer is (which I think must be addressed in terms of divine election and the already/not yet aspect of covenant realities), if it answers the Abrahamic problem, it is equally qualified to answer the Jeremiah 31 problem.
2.The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 is explicitly made to contrast, not with the Abrahamic Covenant, at which the sign of circumcision was given, but the Mosaic Covenant.
Consider well: the New Covenant will be “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt...†(Jeremiah 31:32). If circumcision were a Mosaic institution, the difference here mentioned might concern the scope of sign-recipients. But circumcision was not given as a sign of the Sinaitic Covenant – it was given as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, of which we today are made full heirs (Galatians 3:29). The Mosaic Covenant was in discontinuity with the Abrahamic Covenant and its fulfillment, the New Covenant; but that is no reason to suppose a disjunction between the scope of membership within the Abrahamic Covenant and the New. It simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
3.The New Testament speaks of the possibility of formal covenant members being broken off.
Romans 11 speaks very clearly of a certain continuity between covenant members of the Old and New Testaments; and that is, that as those displaying unbelief were broken off in the Old, so those who display unbelief will be broken off in the New (Romans 11:19-21). This indicates that there were persons who were formally members of the Old Covenant, but who did not partake of its essence. It is clear how this could be the case: many were given the formal sign of inclusion, but eventually displayed their unbelieving hearts. Now, given the truth that the same reality is a New Covenant factor, we must grapple with the fact that there will indeed be New Covenant members (formally) who are not genuine, and who will be broken off. The Hebrews warning passages, especially 6:4-6, bear out this truth as well. This one observation cuts away the foundation of the pure-membership argument. It is not as though we should not strive for purity of membership, but we must do so, first, by using the canons of inclusion that God has given us, which is ever spoken of in terms of those whom he has called and their seed; and second, acknowledging the fact that this attempt for purity will not be finally successful until Jesus returns to separate the sheep from the goats. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant was cast in terms of a pure membership, but was not perfectly realized in its formal ranks; so the New Covenant is cast in terms of pure membership, but will not be perfectly realized until the consummation. This observation has the effect of making the pure-membership argument a moot point for the question of the proper subjects of baptism, and throws us back upon the old questions of continuity with the Abrahamic Covenant, correspondence of signs (in this regard, cf. Colossians 2:10-12), and the manner in which Jesus and the apostles spoke of the children of believing parents. And these strands of evidence, I believe, point definitely to the legitimacy of Reformed paedo-baptism.
But finally, I must acknowledge my appreciation for your final paragraph. Baptism is indeed a glorious sign that we have been buried and risen with our Lord, and its importance should not be diminished. But at the same time, I rejoice to labor together with my Baptist brothers who cling to the gospel of God's free grace, and work for the spread of the Kingdom of Christ.
Blessings in Him, Nathan
Apr 18th 2007
@Nathan. Thanks for your thought-out response. Let me begin by hitting a couple of passages you mentioned.
First, I don't think Acts 2:39 means that children are in the covenant by virtue of their believing parents. I believe this is also true of the passage in 1 Corinthians 7. Those "the Lord our God will call to Himself" refers to salvific grace. I don't understand how that can be taken to mean anything else. The Luke 18 passage teaches that we must have faith like a child (innocent, un-questioning, humble, etc) not that those children Jesus pointed to actually "possess" the kingdom.
The possession of faith is by very nature what constitutes the body of the New Covenant. We raise our children in the hope that God will indeed call them to himself, but by birth alone they are not "in" the New Covenant ("all will know me").
You're right that we can't be assured that those we dunk under water are actually regenerate. I for one was baptized at the age of 12, but I was not regenerate. It was the hastiness of my parents to see me baptized that pushed me into it. However, as soon as I did experience the new birth I did undergo the waters of baptism in its intended meaning (in fact, I even have pictures).
It's true that the New Covenant is set as a juxtaposition against the Mosaic Covenant, but we also know from Gal 3 that the Mosaic economy was only for a duration to lead Israel to Christ (Gal 3:23-25). It was intended to show Israel her need of justification, but Abraham's promise was that all the nations would be blessed through him in a soteriological sense (3:8-9, 29). In fact, that was Paul's premise after stating the temporary duration of the Mosaic economy.
As for "apostasy texts" in the New Testament. I agree that the NT is grounded to an audience familiar with covenant unfaithfulness, but the great truth is that Christ has purchased the New Covenant blessings for his sheep. Each of those texts you mentioned I believe have answers that don't necessitate the paedobaptist logic in them. Romans 11 is a difficult text, but even in the beginning of the chapter Paul is assured that God has not cast of his people, because of the remnant (11:1-2). It wasn't believers and their children that assured Paul, it was those who were actually saved.
One last point. I believe that the paedobaptist logic of applying the not/not yet paradigm to the New Covenant is actually an error that is common to Dispensationalism. The New Covenant is a now reality, and it is an eternal reality; but we will not be waiting for heaven to see the full promise of Jer 31 fulfilled. I believe Ezekiel 36:26-27 is also a prophecy of the New Covenant where all will be "sprinkled clean." I'm also curious how you interpret Joel 2:28-29 in light of Peter's sermon at Pentecost.
Anyway, we could go round and round, but in the end it seems like a debate that will continue long past both your and my mortal lives. I'm just glad that we will get the opportunity to worship the Worthy Lamb for all eternity beside one another.
Apr 19th 2007
Chris,
Just a couple of quick comments:
1. When I first posted my retraction of paedobaptism on my blog, we ended up discussing all these points in some detail, just in case you (or anyone else) is interested in a more thorough dialogue.
2. I agree that the promise in Acts 2 is of salvific grace -- and I also believe that it is for children of believing parents. Just out of curiosity, do you think all infants will be sent to hell? If not, God must give those who are in heaven his salvific grace, according to his terms.
3. But Jesus said those children (including infants, according to Greek terminology) belongs to them. You cannot construe the pronoun "of such" in a way that would exclude them -- the Greek just doesn't bend that far. But anyway, we dealt with that question more thoroughly in the thread I mentioned earlier.
4. Your "all will know me" quotation is true, but again I say it is just as true with reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, whose members clearly included infants. As far as the already/not yet, I don't think I'm too far from you. Are you perfectly sanctified? Do you see Jesus face-to-face, or know him as you are known? This and many other things are blood-bought guarantees of the New Covenant, but they are not yet fully realized. The same thing applies to the Joel prophecy. The Spirit was indeed poured out upon all flesh, but they will continue to grow in the grace that he is working in them until consummation, adult believers and their children alike.
5. Finally, I do rejoice to labor together with you, and I trust that we are both growing up to greater doctrinal maturity. Perhaps one day, by God's grace, we will see eye-to-eye on this issue, but even if not, let us continue to prod each other on to good works and right doctrine. Feel free to add your final rebuttals, etc., to my brief points, and I will probably leave the debate as it now stands.
Apr 19th 2007
@Nathan: As for (2) I think that infants are born into a state alienated from God. They are not, by default, part of the elect as other reformed brothers have gone towards (Piper, Mohler, Hodge, MacArthur, etc).
(3) Luke 18:16 says: "for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (emphasis added), and in the next verse we must "receive the kingdom of God like a child" which I see as refer to a heart disposition not a physical one.
(4) It's true there was a physical strand of the Abrahamic Covenant (Canaan, physical circumcision, physical nation of descendants), but they have found their anti type in the New Testament (Heaven, regeneration, "spiritual" Israel).
In the end, I cannot get past applying the now/not yet paradigm to the New Covenant. It seems to be a gross misapplication of that eschatological truth.
(5) Amen. I leave it as stands also.
Apr 20th 2007
@Nathan: As for (2) I think that infants are born into a state alienated from God. They are not, by default, part of the elect as other reformed brothers have gone towards (Piper, Mohler, Hodge, MacArthur, etc).
Chris, are you saying here that the infants are not elect until they become saved? Or are they elect, but not yet come to a recognition of their sin and sought out salvation?
I was trained for my meter reading job by a guy that attended an apostolic church. I don't know much about their doctrine. I was wondering if you could point me in any direction. i did have ashort talk with him and it seemed as if in that denomination, you have to be baptized to be saved. I would appreciate any help.
P.S.-I give my testimony at real life May 17. I would like you to come if possible.
Apr 20th 2007
@Mike: No one ever "becomes elect" they only experience proof of their election. I must say I'm not versed in the apostolic church, and be sure to remind me about your testimony.`
Apr 20th 2007
So what is the definition of "the elect" is this term just christianese for those that are saved or is it a specific group of people? (I understand that this would only be a group that God would know) I am just trying to get a clear picture of where you are coming from.
You should look into the apostolic church. From what that guy was tellin me about it, it is riddled with heresy.
I will.
Apr 21st 2007
I appreciate the response to "Confessing Believers"/credo baptism. I've been wanting to understand more (in a concise) direct way why on earth believers (pedo/infant baptism) are so excellent in New Covenant Gospel theology -thus the whole glorious Word of God and then go off on a seemingly different basis for their hermeneutics/interpretation of this! I am presently before God wanting to not listen again to any of the teachings of these fellow reformed believers of whom I've grown to love & greatly appreciate who teach the glorious Word of Life/Grace in Christ, but immediately seem to go on a different tangent in interpretation style when it comes to this. ----Sure, all who are elect are just that –before they/we were born. God knows this. Following the NT pattern, believers only know to be baptized when they are sure they are believers. I will not allow my children to be baptized until they are older /upper teens+ as to have their ‘own faith’ in our Lord Jesus Christ before Father. (I know I really opened a can a worms in this last sentence! :) Glory to God, brother. Thanks for your time.
Apr 21st 2007
@Mike: The elect are all those God chose to be saved, in Christ, before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:3-14; Rom 8:29-30).
Apr 21st 2007
@Dave-I think a can of worms would be correct. I don't know that putting an age on when your children can have "their own faith" is such a good idea. The gospel can even reach a young child, why wait to baptize them till they are older??
@Chris- "They are not, by default, part of the elect as other reformed brothers have gone towards."
-I may be way off. It just seems as if in this one statement you are saying that people join the elect, rather than, they are elect even before they are saved and eventually at some point they accept Christ as there savior and secure eternal life.
Apr 23rd 2007
@Mike - Without trying to speak for Chris, the elect do not "join the elect". To join indicates an act of joining on the part of the one who joins, a work in salvation if you will. If one were to join the elect they in fact would not be elected at all.
Apr 24th 2007
@Mike -It's not really a can of worm at all. In fact, it make great Biblical sense to let them affirm their own faith in Christ when they are mature rather than the real possibility that they are just mimicking my faith that I am assured as one Of His Chosen for sure. Reality check, that's all.
Still the main point (the first part of what I said) still stands if anyone wants to comment on it.
Apr 26th 2007
@Dave- You yourself said it was a can of worms??? Affirm yes. I believe a child's faith is just as valid as mine. Age makes no difference in the eyes of God.
@Perry-It seemed like Chris was saying that the elect were not the elect before they were saved. I was just clearing that up and making sure that was or wasn't the case. I believe I know were Chris stands I just want to make sure.