Why Enthusiastic Agreement with Paedobaptists Persuades me Otherwise.

The central argument for Paedobaptism is an appeal to the continuity between the Old and New Covenant. For as the Old Covenant is accompanied by the covenant sign of circumcision, received by children born into the covenant community, so under the New Covenant, the accompanying sign of baptism should also be given to the children born into it. While I am not a Paedobaptist, I not only agree with the premise of the argument, I believe it to be an enthusiastically convincing case in favour of believers’ baptism.

I admire Paedobaptists. There are many aspects of infant baptism that I appreciate. I am also tempted to be envious of my Paedobaptist friends, given the historical credentials of the position and its adherents. I hold no deep rooted traditions on this matter or animosity towards the system that might spur a desire to select evidence only to substantiate a pre-held conclusion. I am certainly under no illusion that an outline of my understanding will persuade any poor soul who stumbles upon it. I do not expect a copy of my views to trigger a great ecumenical council, like those of old. However, Paul encourages us, admittedly with regards to another in-house issue, that each person ought to be fully convinced in their own mind. What follows is a brief outline of my interaction with one central aspect of Paedobaptist teaching, why I agree with it, and why my agreement convinces me to remain Credobaptist.

It is clear that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the covenants. Paul’s case in Romans and in Galatians depends upon it, as does the book of Hebrews. Under the Old Covenant, sacrifices were made by priests in temples. It is the same under the New Covenant. Christ is the rebuilt temple, the resurrected sacrifice and the great high priest; the reality and substance to which the Old Covenant pointed in both shadow and sign. The superiority of Christ also reveals elements of discontinuity. His better sacrifice ends the sacrificial system, as his ‘once for all’ death allows him, as a better high priest, to sit, where Old Covenant priests would stand offering unending sacrifices as a reminder that the blood they offered could not remove sin.

The concept of continuity between the covenants need not be proved, for it is agreed upon. It is the level of continuity and the drawing of the line of discontinuity that is disputed. No orthodox Christian will argue that the Old Covenant sign of physical circumcision is still in operation. Neither will any argue that the sign of baptism is not to be given under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. Therefore this discussion is located upon the foundational understanding of both the continuity and discontinuity that is common to both sides. It is rather the nature of the continuity as seen in the administration of the sign that is under discussion.

Genesis 17 outlines the stipulations for the Abrahamic covenant in which we read: ‘this is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”’

Before the Paedobaptist appeals to this passage to present him or herself as the bastion of continuity, let’s observe the striking discontinuity here, expressed by both baptismal systems. The covenant sign is no longer circumcision, it is no longer given only to males, nor is it administered to all in the household whether born or bought! Likewise, most Paedobaptists do not consider children of Credo-Baptist parents to be covenant breakers and to be cut off from God’s people for not receiving the covenant sign. The same may be said of physical land promises under the covenant, spoken of in the preceding verses. Those receiving the New Covenant sign cannot rightfully stake a claim to a slice of Canaan.

Yet is there continuity, amid the varied discontinuity, in the giving of the sign to covenant children. “Yes” says the Paedobaptist. And I heartily agree. I believe the New Testament to be abundantly clear on this point. The Apostolic witness of John and Paul unite to explain that the children born under the New Covenant are born by regeneration, and it is they who must receive the covenant sign of baptism. John plainly states that the children of the New Covenant not those born to physical parents, but those born again into the family of God: “to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” The children of the Covenant inaugurated by Christ are the spiritual children born into the family of God and adopted as his heirs. Christians are the fulfilment of the children spoken of in Genesis 17, both those who were born under the covenant and those foreigners bought into the covenant. Both images are true of us. We are born of God and we are foreigners to God’s grace bought and brought into Christ. Paul uses both pictures to convey conversion. John’s prologue tells us that the natural ‘seed’ of Abraham, the recipients of the Old Covenant, rejected Christ (‘he came to his own but his own received him not’). But that the children of the New Covenant are those who accept Christ and will not be conceived by human decision, human will or the natural descent of generations, but born of God. Thus, the emphasis John places, in his Gospel, on the relationship of God the Father to God the Son is crucial. Jesus is not God’s Son by virtue of a human decision or a husband’s will. His Sonship is not generated biologically, and therefore the covenant made in the blood of the Son is not a covenant passed on through biology.

The reason the Old Covenant sign was to be given to physical children was because that Covenant was made to an ethnic group, the nation of Israel and offspring of Abraham. That ethnicity was passed on through physical birth, thus the Covenant continued with the nation through all the generations born physically to Abraham’s seed. The New Covenant is not an ethnic Covenant, but one that will see a nation formed from every tribe, tongue and people. Therefore, the Covenant cannot be passed through biological succession, for the ‘ethnicity’ of the New Covenant is faith in the Christ, conceived through new birth. Once we were ‘not a people’ but now we are a ‘holy nation and a chosen people’ (1 Peter 2:9-10). Birth into the ‘holy nation’ under the New Covenant is unlike birth into the Old Covenant nation, though both are spoken of in terms of birth. It is a different kind of sign for a different kind of birth into a different kind of nation occupying a different kind of Promised Land and inheritance. All the covenantal language of Genesis 17 is retold in Christ, the maker of a better covenant and the substance signposted by the Old Covenant imagery. So the Old Covenant is a Covenant with an ethnic group. Children of ethnicity are biological children, thus the sign is given them. The New Covenant is made with children of regeneration. Regeneration is not biologically reproduced, thus the sign is given to the spiritual new-born.

Paul leaves no doubt as to the identity of Abraham’s seed. They are those of faith. The close of Galatians 3 explains: “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The ‘promise’ of which we are heirs and children is the promise of Genesis 17 and the surrounding chapters. The seed of Abraham that is to receive the covenant sign is the spiritual offspring who by faith have entered the covenant. Here baptism is linked to our entrance through faith into the covenant as the spiritual seed of Abraham. So the command to administer the sign to the seed of Abraham is fulfilled in the baptism of that seed, plainly said to be the reborn children of God here.

Maybe a simple deductive argument is helpful.

1.       The covenant sign was to be given to Abraham’s children.

2.       The New Covenant sign is baptism.

3.       The true children of Abraham are those who are, by faith in Christ, the children of God (Gal. 3).

4.       Thus, the children to whom the sign of baptism must be given are those who are children of God by faith in Christ.

I believe in baptising infants. But those who are identified as infants of the New Covenant promises are the spiritual children of the new birth.

In his seminal sermon at Pentecost, Peter uses covenant language to explain the promises made to those who repent and believe. In some ways, you might argue that Peter is explaining the terms of the covenant to the recipients of it, in a similar manner to the way in which God gave the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant to its recipient in Genesis. Peter even uses the oft repeated Old Testament language: ‘to you and your children’, which really underscores the covenantal nature of God’s words to the people through the Apostle. They are meant to understand that God is introducing a New Covenant by the use of those words, I believe. Peter states, ‘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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” The promise of the covenant is ‘for all whom the Lord our God will call’ both for them and future generations as well as those who are far off. This promise is, according to Peter, as follows: all who repent and are baptized into Christ for forgiveness of sin will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is the promise that Peter gives to them and their children and those far off. Paedobaptists are often excited by the use of the words ‘children’ and ‘baptism’ in the same passage, but they are not the only words here. The promise that is for us and our children is not the promise of baptism alone, but of repentance, baptism, forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit. It is this that is for our children. It is this that saves them. We pass on to them the same promise that we received: that we repent, are baptized, receive forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit. It is the gospel we pass on by word and deed so that both our children and those who are far off may repent, be baptized, forgiven and Spirit filled. This is the covenant that God has made with us. The scope of that covenant is both historical (‘for you and your children’) and geographical (‘for those who are far off’). It is for all people: that is, all people irrespective of time and all people irrespective of location.

I have heard Paedobaptists question where the New Testament abrogates the command to give the sign of the covenant to our children. Two responses are necessary. First, the objection is carefully worded, because the command was not to ‘give the sign of the covenant to our children’. Rather, the command was to circumcise the children born to us as a covenant sign (and even then, only the males). All Paedobaptists agree that circumcision has been abrogated. It is only a generalization of the command that allows those lines of continuity to be drawn, removing enough specifics to make a direct connection. But second, I believe Acts 2 amply answers the objection. In stating the terms of the New Covenant, Peter says that the sign of that covenant is to be given to all those who are repentant, forgiven and indwelt by the Spirit. By stipulating how the new sign is to be administered, the continuity and discontinuity becomes self-evident from his words.

An example might help. Imagine a footballer whose old contract stated he would receive £10,000 per week. Later he is given a renewed contract that explains he will receive £20,000 per week. By virtue of stating his new wage, the contract does not have to abrogate his former sum. The contract need not say ‘player x no longer receives £10,000 per week’. Or imagine a Liverpool player transferred to Chelsea who continued to show up for Liverpool games simply because his new contract with Chelsea did not say ‘stop playing for Liverpool’. The new stipulations are sufficient to make this point. By stipulating that the promise of the covenant is that the repentant are baptized, forgiven and indwelt by the Spirit, he doesn’t need to tell us not to give the sign to the unrepentant and unforgiven who we do not believe have received the gift of the Spirit, as with Paedobaptist practice.  

I believe this approach not only to be Biblical, but Christ centred, as we would naturally expect a Biblical argument to be. Christ is that last recorded baby to be circumcised under the Old Covenant. He is then the first to be baptized as he begins his ministry and the inauguration of a New Covenant.

In one sense, Christ is the fulfilment of the seed of Abraham, as per Galatians 3. The ‘seed’ is firstly fulfilled in Christ, then in us his people. We see this type of fulfilment elsewhere. Take the temple as an example. Who is the fulfilment of the Old Testament idea of the temple? Firstly Christ: see John 2:21. Through Christ, the temple image flows to his people and finds further fulfilment in them, as in 1 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2. Thus is it Christ, first and foremost, who fulfils the whole seed motif introduced in Genesis, from the dragon-slaying seed of the woman in Genesis 3 to the seed of the Abrahamic covenant through whom the world will be blessed. To insist that the infants who should receive the covenant sign are physical infants delimits the expansion of the Old Testament shadows and types.

I would content that we all hold to the notion that physical Old Testament offspring are fulfilled in Christ and his spiritual seed, whether consistently or otherwise. Isaiah 53 is a prime example. Here, the Messiah’s seed (offspring) are spoken of: ‘he will see his offspring and prolong his days’. The Old Testament Jew would have rightly expected the reference to offspring here as being physical children. Yet I can say with confidence that, unless you’re still on the ‘Da Vinci Code’ bandwagon, you will agree that the Messiah’s offspring are the children of Christ through faith.

To my knowledge, every Apostolic interpretation of how the Old Testament references to seed must to understood in the light of Christ, is that seed are the children of God by faith. Whether Galatians 3 and 4:28, Romans 9:8, John 1, or any of the references to Isaiah 53 that identify the prophesied figure as Christ, who was childless with regard to biological offspring. Likewise the reference to Isaiah 8 used in Hebrews 2:13 refers to the children given to the Messiah as Christians, though only two verses later we are named as the seed of Abraham. Therefore, when Paedobaptists identify the giving of the covenant sign to physical children as being fulfilled in the giving of baptism also to physical children, it feels like a step back into the shadows.

In sum, the continuity of the physical signs of the covenants is seen in expansion and spiritual fulfilment in Christ. Why must we maintain that the giving of the sign to children has no spiritual Christocentric fulfilment in a manner out of sync with the other physical elements of the covenant, and out of sync with the Apostolic explanation of the nature of New Covenant birth and New Covenant children? It ironically creates discontinuity in our exegesis between our understanding of this element of fulfilment with every other element. The hermeneutics we are utilizing changes in order to make this point.

The physical act of circumcision is fulfilled in the new birth, a circumcision not ‘performed by human hands’ (Col. 2:11). The physical land promises in the covenant are fulfilled not in the square mileage of Canaan, but a better Promised Land, ultimately, the New Heavens and New Earth. The physical 24 hour Sabbath is fulfilled in a greater Sabbath rest in Christ. The animal sacrifices are fulfilled not in a physical lamb, but in Christ the Lamb of God. The temple is fulfilled by the walking talking temple of Christ’s body and in His church, not physical bricks and mortar. The Levitical system of priests is fulfilled not in a physical descendant of Levi, but a great high priest. The physical seed of Abraham is fulfilled in Christ and the children of God by faith. So the giving of the covenant sign to the covenant offspring is consistent given to the newborn child of God.

This is our hermeneutic. The New Covenant reality and substance is the mountain of Christ that cast those circumcision-shaped, Sabbath-shaped, temple-shaped shadows. Therefore I believe Paedobaptism is akin to a man who claims to have climbed the mountain simply because he is standing at the peak of the shadow.

The Case For The Existence Of Dawkins

Over the last few decades, modern disciples of naturalism have begun promoting the existence of a new entity. Far from being an abstract idea, adherents have personified their belief in this entity, ascribing personal characteristics to it, naming it Richard Dawkins and even assigning it with common human titles such as ‘doctor’ and ‘professor’. History traces this popular belief in ‘Dawkins’ as far back as the 1970’s, however others claim that his existence predates popular belief, proposing an origin date concurrent with the events of the Second World War.

Here, I shall attempt to survey the main arguments for his existence and offer a mild critique.

Argument one: Sightings

In recent years, several sighting of Dawkins have been reported. These range from individual witnesses claiming to have spotted Dawkins roaming the corridors of the academic facilities from where the myth originated. Other evidence includes mass sightings. Whole assemblies confess to have seen him at one time. Even sceptics of Dawkins have come forward as eye witnesses to his existence.

At first such evidence appears compelling, yet we must not underestimate the persuasive power of the human brain. Most apparitions could be easily explained by way of hallucination. The brain has been known to create ‘false memories’, reconstructing and piecing together information to form fictional recollections. This is particularly true when the ‘memory’ is desirable to the witness. Considering that the majority of reported sightings are from Dawkins’ own disciples and those sympathetic to this idea, it is easy to understand how such a sighting could be the result of wishful thinking. The fact that most reported manifestations develop amongst those predisposed to the idea of Dawkins brings into question whether such biased testimonies carry much weight or credence. In this case, the faith of the ‘eyewitness’ makes them susceptible to hallucinations of this kind. Such evidence must be filed alongside sightings of Elvis Presley, suspiciously only seen by those devoted to the man and his music. Or sightings of Santa Claus witnessed by over excited five years olds.

Sceptical philosopher Dr William Lane Craig had invited Dawkins to appear live on stage, yet without fruit, fuelling the fire that feeds upon his non-existence. Some may point to mass sightings of Dawkins which undoubtedly prove harder to dismiss. However, history is replete with examples of devotees witnessing appearances of mythical figures, even in mass. Whether we reference mass sightings of UFOs, religious figures or alleged miracles, we cannot merely plead for safety in numbers. Mass hysteria is a real phenomenon and results in both a persuasive emotional and physiological affect upon those present.

Argument two: Publications

Increasingly, articles and books have been produced under the name of Richard Dawkins. Beginning in the 70s, Dawkins’ name has been attached to several writings. As the adherents to Dawkins have grown, so has the list of books attributed to him. Although we are no longer in possession of the original manuscripts of these texts, thousands of printed copies are in circulation around the world. While at first this seems to be convincing, analysis of the texts proves inconclusive.

The breadth of material being attributed to Dawkins brings his existence into question. Some of the material is scholarly, accompanied by numerous footnotes and references, demonstrating an academic style. Yet other attributed material includes that of a popular level consisting of a lyrical, everyman style. Consider these two statements, both attributed to Dawkins: 

1. “It is a fundamental truism, of logic more than genetics, that the phenotypic effect of a gene is a concept that has meaning only if the context of environmental influences is specified…”
2. “I detest 'Jingle Bells,' 'White Christmas,' 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer,' and the obscene spending bonanza…”

How can we reconcile such contrasting styles, tones and contents? Just as New Testament critiques have deduced that works attributed to the Apostle Paul cannot all be authentic owing to their varying vocabulary and content, so we must conclude likewise here. At times, ‘Dawkins’ presents himself as an evolutionary biologist, and at other times, an ethologist, even a quasi-philosopher and theologian. As it would be amusingly irrational to assume that there was only one man behind all this material, we must conclude that either some of these publications are the work of zealous forgers, or that Dawkins is indeed a phantom.

Argument three: Influence

Proponents of the Dawkins hypothesis point to his influence as evidence of his existence. How could a fictional character have such an impact in popularizing naturalism? Could a figment of modern imagination really inspire such a joyful stigmatization of faith? And what of his disciples? Why would his followers devote so much to a person they knew to be a myth?

Powerful as this may be, these questions can be answered without leaving the armchair. Every generation creates their own Dawkins. Every culture has their own set of myths they devise to attach transcendent meaning to their materialism. Dawkins is clearly a concoction of the myths that went before him. Once you identify the central aspects of the Dawkins myth, you notice that those elements are merely borrowed and recycled from earlier myths. 19^th Century Germany had Friedrich Nietzsche, 18^th Century Scotland had David Hume, ancient Greece had Heraclitus and the USA has Daniel Dennett. The common threads that run through such myths are evidence that Dawkins is a invention drawn from a mishmash of the myths that preceded him.

However, the Dawkinist continues to argue, “given the extent of his influence that we see all around us, isn’t it more likely that Dawkins does exist? Can you prove his non-existence?” 

Let’s be straight. I’m not altogether dismissing the existence of some Dawkins or other. Maybe there was once a person called Richard Dawkins. Maybe he really did live in England and even author a book. But such a story must have been greatly embellished over time by his followers and his works endowed with a power that he would never have claimed for himself. How could anyone proves the non-existance of a Richard Dawkins, or any Dawkins for that matter. Have you scoured the dark side of the moon for traces of Dawkins? Or perhaps Alpha Century is teeming with whole colonies of Dawkinses, or entire undiscovered parallel universes populated with bespectacled humanist professors with degrees from extra terrestrial establishments with alien ivy climbing up the walls. I think not. Rather, it is existence, not non-existence, that must be demonstrated.

So ask yourself the question: have you seen, firsthand, the empirical evidence of Dawkins’ existence? A DNA test? An original birth certificate? I fear that no such evidence exists. And until it does, we must tread carefully. The burden of proof lies with the believer. And therefore brute rationality forces us to conclude that there probably isn’t a Dawkins, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

When Culture Suffers

As Scripture indicates, each Christian should be ready to give both a credible answer and a sensitive, listening ear to important questions such as “why does God allow suffering?” A credible answer alone may provide little more than some intellectual comfort, while a listening ear alone could still lead to despair. The grieving mother is not seeking after stock answers, just as much as the cynic is not after sympathy. There are no answers in vacuums. 

There are many places a Christian might go to help explain the role of suffering. Yet all apologetic responses must be able to live at the cross. Not only should answers be able to live there, but the best responses are able to lead us there. For instance, a God who only allows suffering, yet without purpose, is not the God displayed at the cross. The cross demonstrates that the goal of God is not to give witty answers to problematic apologetic questions. The cross provides a solution, not merely slick answers. At the same time, the cross must be intimately related to the answers we choose to give.

But to take a step back, the assertion that “if the God of the Bible existed, there would be no suffering” is missing a key element of the argument often overlooked. For if there was no suffering in the world, that would provide a strong case for the atheism; for the God of the Bible promises suffering. Therefore, what the assertion has ignored is that the Bible describes a world where both God and suffering co-exist. The assertion would only be valid if the Bible portrayed a world where the existence of God had precluded the existence of suffering. Yet, as is patently obvious, the Bible is saturated with accounts of suffering. The space between the first and last two chapters of Scripture contains little respite from the presence of human suffering.

Therefore, the argument must be moved back another step. Though Scripture might be accurate in its portrayal of a world where suffering exists, while maintaining the existence of God it the midst, the concept of God (as described in the Bible) is presented as being incompatible with the presence of suffering. The two are seen as paradoxical.

While there are a number of answers that can and should be presented from the Biblical data, there is one angle that I believe is very important, and largely unexplored to my knowledge. It is the angle of the culture that asks the question. Tim Keller provides some very interesting material on unpacking worldviews when responding to objections in ‘The Reason For God’. While we might believe that the objection to God from suffering is universally valid, we should be aware of the extent to which our worldview is in play. For the assertion that suffering disproves the existence of God, is largely asked by those living in the affluent west. Western society has made great strides to minimalize the amount of suffering we encounter. Medicine and our understanding of healthcare have advanced. We understand diet. Food is readily available. Education is commonplace and offered to all. Governments put policies in place to provide finance for those unable to work. Houses are sturdily built. Famines are non-existent. Wars happen on the other side of the world. We are well clothed and provided for. Not to mention, I am not likely to witness anything that would classify as a serious flood, hurricane, tornado, tidal wave, volcano or earthquake. We have done our best to eradicate suffering. Of course, we will all witness disease and death during our lifetimes. Perhaps poverty, homelessness, mental illness and loneliness. And many of us will at least indirectly witness the horrors of the world. But you understand the point. It would not be unusual to live 80 years, be financially secure, well fed, have family and friends, all without witnessing much beyond the garden variety struggles of human experience. 

For us, suffering is not normal. It is to be avoided, not expected. When we encounter it, something must be wrong with the world. Our entire existence is based around comfort and the absence of struggle. When you shape your worldview that way, you will also shape your God that way. If life is about comfort, then our idea of God will revolve around him desiring and maintaining our comfort. Therefore, the presence of suffering provides an objection to God. We match our idea of God to our expectations for life. “My expectations are that I live a healthy, wealthy life, therefore God’s desires must match mine. If God does not give me these things, he must not exist.” There is the potential for us to create a cushy and selfish idea of God. We end up with people converting to atheism because they caught a cold that forced them to miss their theatre trip. I realize that this isn’t true of everyone, and many affluent people can still experience horrors that genuinely question their belief in God. Though I still believe that the general observation is valid. 

Is it not interesting that these objections are pushed in societies that suffer the least? For when we examine the growth of Christianity, we notice how much of the church’s growth is found in the midst of suffering and persecution. This was true of Jesus’ first disciples right through to the present day. If suffering provided a robust objection to God, then it is interesting to note the extent to which reality seems to defy theory.

Along similar lines, almost all of the Biblical characters suffered all kinds of atrocious experiences, yet not once does the Bible record them questioning the existence of God. Indeed, many questions are recorded (why do righteous people suffer? Is suffering a divine punishment? Does suffering reflect that the world is soon to end? Will God avenge the victims of suffering?) but the people involved never see suffering as incompatible with God.

Indeed, if the theory were true, what would we expect to see in reality? All theories of reality should be tested against the reality they seek to critique. If it were true that suffering provided a solid objection to God then we should expect to discover that religious adherence would correlate to suffering. That in areas where suffering is greater, belief in God is diminished. This is simply untrue. In fact a case could be made that belief in God geographically (and, to an extent, historically) increases with suffering.

If we, Christians included, have created a God whose primary mission is to relieve us of problems (like some divine handyman), then it is no surprise that we have given rise to the belief that suffering and God are incompatible. And it is frankly a little cheeky to suggest that the my subscription to theism depends upon God upholding my comfort, whilst the suffering masses of our world remain firm in their adherence to God.