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.
