Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

Although not a post in my baptism series, this is meant to supplement it. I want to address, as briefly as possible, the historical evidence for infant baptism. It is often argued that the practice was a late development. Some even argue that there is no example of it until the late fourth century. My objective in this article is to demonstrate by citing the church fathers that this is not correct. I cite five Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries here that show the evidence that we currently have. If other historical evidence comes to my attention, I'll write a subsequent post.

Ireneaus
Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor (probably Smyrna, modern Izmir) around 130 to Christian parents and is believed to have been the disciple of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was in turn the disciple of the apostle John (author of the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and Revelation). His teacher, then, was taught by an apostle. He spent much of his ministry in Lyon, France (a missionary church of Polycarp) as the Bishop. He died a martyr around 200. This means most, if not all, of his ministry and writing was within 100 years of the death of John. In Against Heresies 2.22.4, he writes, "For [Christ] came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Because the Fathers did not admit a division between baptism and salvation, this is a clear statement of infant baptism in the church. Irenaeus could not have included infants in that list if they were not being baptised by the church. Here we have a Bishop in the church, within 100 years (late 2nd century) of the death of John, trained in Asia Minor by Polycarp disciple of John, remembered as the great heresy slayer, serving in France, making reference to the baptism of infants as normative in the church. It is difficult to see how he might favor infant baptism if the church he oversaw was planted by Polycarp, the disciple of John, unless infant baptism is apostolic.

Tertullian
Tertullian was born in Carthage (or at least the province of) around 145 or 155 to pagan parents. He was trained in Rome and is often referred to (in modern writings) as a lawyer, which may have been his line of work. He converted around 185. His writings certainly carry a wonderful logical sense of themselves and sound like the work of a lawyer's mind. He gave the church the word "Trinity" as well as many wonderful writings for which we are thankful. His ministry (as an elder - he doesn't seem to have ever served as a Bishop) in Carthage was from about 190 to 200. Again, this puts his writings about 100 years after the death of John and the end of the apostolic age. Tertullian's support for our view comes in a round about way. We disagree with his argument, but in making it, he reveals the normative practice in his day and time. Tertullian argues in On Baptism Chapter 18 that baptism should be delayed (not only for children, but for anyone unmarried). He makes reference to the practice of parents speaking for their children in baptism (a clear indication of the very young age of the child and the child's inability to confess Christ), and argues against it. He recognizes that they appeal to Christ's teaching, "Let the little ones come unto me and forbid them not." His argument, however, is not based upon the Baptist objection, but upon the view that once a person is baptized, he or she may no longer sin without putting themselves in grave spiritual peril. He does not, however, make any attempt to argue that the practice is not biblical, apostolic, or orthodox. Nor does he say those baptized as infants should be rebaptized, or that their infant baptism isn't true baptism. He offers his point of view as a pastoral suggestion only. The value in his writing, then, is in witnessing to the apparently acknowledged practice of infant baptism in Carthage at the end of the 2nd century.

Origen
Born to Christian parents around 185 in or around Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was a lay person in the church known among other things for his role as a teacher of new converts (he led the catechetical school at Alexandria, famous throughout the Church at the time). His father was martyred when Origen was about 17 years old. His works span the period of the first half of the third century and represent to some degree the events and views of Alexandrian Christianity in the early third century. He says in his Homily on Leviticus, 8.3, "In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants." In his Commentaries on Romans, 5:9, he argues that this "usage" came from the apostles. "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." Origen may be mistaken. But no one takes him to task until after the Reformation. Who is likely to have a better take on what was and was not apostolic? Origen (a teacher in the church born about 90 years after the apostolic period to Christian parents), or an Anabaptist of the 16th century?

The Apostolic Tradition
This writing of the early church is thought to have been composed by Hippolytus of Rome who died about 235. This makes its writing roughly contemporary with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Hippolytus is believed by most to have been Bishop of Portus very near Rome. The Apostolic Tradition has been tentatively dated to around 215. In this work, chapter 21.4, Hippolytus teaches, "The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family." Here is one more example from the period of a Bishop teaching the baptism of children too young to answer for themselves. This time in Rome. Notice also that the language of baptism here is household, further reinforcing our argument on that point.

Cyprian
Cyprian was born in 200 and died in 258, placing his testimony in the same period, but slightly later than the above witnesses. He was a disciple of Tertullian and Bishop of Carthage in North Africa. With regard to the subject of infant baptism, Cyprian argues (on behalf of 66 presbyters meeting in council) in Epistle LVIII, "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently." Cyprian goes on to argue that there is no reason to delay baptism to the eighth day. Instead, infants may be baptized upon birth. He argues instead that they should be baptized, teaching in the same letter, "how much more, then, should an infant not be held back". Cyprian accepts the principle of baptism as the NC circumcision, but just as the sign changed from circumcision (bloody) to baptism (unbloody), so the requirement that it be applied on the eighth day is now changed to allow for immediate application. Again, it should be pointed out, that Fidus (to whom the letter is addressed) is taking issue with the normative practice of the church of baptizing infants. He does not object to their baptism, but only to baptizing them "early". He thinks they should wait to the 8th day. He is appealing to the rite of circumcision as his motivation, and the council does not take issue with this, but argues that his application is too legalistic. This discussion takes place in the context of the early 3rd century church (again, about 120 years after the apostles). And the view presented is not one man's, but that of an entire council of presbyters in North Africa!

Conclusion
The testimony of these five demonstrates that in the churches 100-150 years after the apostolic period of the church, the baptism of infants was practiced in Asia Minor, France, Egypt, Carthage, and Rome. Given the geographic scope of these writings, the prominence (even in their own day) of these men and their writings, and the indication in each that infant baptism was not unorthodox or heretical, but the normative practice of their churches, I return to the question of my previous post. Does it seem probable that such testimony would exist if infant baptism were contrary to the clear teaching of the apostles? Certainly these men are not infallible, nor were their churches. And there are other things these men taught that we call into question. But on something as fundamental as who should receive baptism, does it seem likely they would (especially in the case of Irenaeus who is only once removed from the apostle John himself) not only allow but embrace such an inappropriate teaching? Two of these men were born into Christian homes (Irenaeus, c.130 and Origen, c.185). They advocate infant baptism, and no record exists of an "adult" baptism for either, making their own baptism as infants a likelihood. Allowing ourselves a bit of license on this account, Irenaeus' baptism in 130 as an infant, then, would have been performed by someone such as Polycarp, discipled by an apostle. We cannot argue this for certain, but it is not at all unreasonable given the evidence before us. And if these men did break with the teaching of the apostles, how do we explain the widespread nature of their break? Heresy has typically started in a local place and spread, but this practice has no such local beginnings. Indeed, since these earliest writings claim apostolic origin for their authority, no one can point to the time when infant baptism began in the church. And where are the writings against the practice? No one speaks up to say, "This isn't the tradition we received!" This argument is compounded by the fact that several of the men above are noted for their defense of the faith and the tradition handed down to them. They are recognized by all Christian scholars today as great men of the church who faithfully played their part in transmitting the faith to the next generation and fighting any heresy or aberration that might try to creep in. Is it likely such men, spread across the Roman empire, quietly introduced a new idea and no one spoke up?

My purpose has not been to establish the case for infant baptism beyond all doubt according to history. I merely intend to demonstrate that the evidence for such as an apostolic practice is not as scant as the credobaptist would have you believe. Their own requirement that only confessors be baptized is not nearly as well supported. Pointing to the example of such is insufficient for them. We teach the baptism of confessors as well. They are seeking to deny infant baptism, but there is no such text in all of the early fathers that teaches us to deny baptism to our infants. They seek to establish that only confessors can be baptized, but there is no such text that teaches this (only examples of confessors being baptized, which I've just admitted we agree with). Occasionally a Father, such as Tertullian, will counsel postponement, but then for reasons that the Baptist himself cannot agree with, demonstrating that he did not have their view in mind. Particularly lacking is any instruction to rebaptize those who were baptized as infants. Nor is there a single example of a child coming of age and then being baptized. The Baptist is left without any evidence for his view, then, for most of the 1500 years leading up to the Reformation. This should put the 100 year gap between the Apostles and any teaching on infant baptism into perspective.

*My title is a sort of tongue in cheek reference to my use of these five fathers to "slay" the Baptist argument that infant baptism is without early attestation. It's really just meant for fun. I hope none will take offense.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six: Some Objections)

My goal in this post is not to present an exhaustive list of Baptist objections. I'm not even sure these are their best objections. But as a Baptist myself at one time, these were the objections that kept me from embracing covenantal infant baptism. They were the objections I most commonly heard and employed. Although some parts of my posts have gotten a little technical, and although much of the commentary below the posts has been very technical, I'm trying to write for the average lay person for the most part. I'll try to simplify the argument in the summary in my final post. Here, then, are the objections most commonly employed.

First, if we are supposed to baptize infants, why don't we see any infant baptisms in the Bible?

If we concede that baptism has replaced circumcision, we do see infants receiving the sign in the Bible. If, however, we restrict ourselves to the NT, we need to consider the context. Acts is not concerned with answering the question of whether or not infants should receive the sign. Instead it is recording the spread of the Kingdom through the gospel. It records adult conversions and the baptisms that follow. This is what we would expect from such a narrative. This objection is an argument from silence and is therefore not effective. I could with equal force ask why we don't see any children being baptized when they come of age. Or why we aren't told of any women participating in the Lord's Supper. It's also important to remember that children were included in the covenant in the OT and would be assumed to be members of the NC unless they were instructed otherwise. So the burden is not on the paedobaptist to prove that children were baptized, but on the Baptist, to prove that they were not, having for some reason been excluded.

It should also be noted that of the (only) 12 recorded baptism events in the NT after (but including) Pentecost, 4 are certainly household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, and Stephanus), and one other appears to have been (Crispus). It is no more legitimate for Baptists to insist that children were absent or not included in these baptisms than it is for Presbyterians to insist that they were. We simply cannot know the ages of those present based upon these records. But what we do see is that the text emphasizes that the baptism was a household baptism. This means the entire household. The Baptist argues that if infants were present, they would have been excluded. But the text does not say this. And the argument assumes the very point in question. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it says he was baptized at once, "he and all his family." There is no attempt to assure us that infants were excluded. And before we laugh and say there was no need for Luke (the author of Acts) to record that for us, keep in mind: Infants were included in this rite of covenant membership for 1700 years. Their part would have to be assumed unless some instruction had been given otherwise. It is not silly to assume they were there and they participated. It is contrary to the biblical pattern to assume that they weren't. And yet their exclusion is not clarified by Luke.

This household language is also incredibly reminiscent of the OC. The language of covenant was "household" language. Genesis 17 speaks of circumcision being applied to all the males in his house. Dueteronomy 6 commands parents to instruct their children (because they are covenant children!). Paul issues instructions patterned on this same assumption (see Ephesians 6:1-4, for example, where Paul repeats the 5th commandment, with its promise, to gentile children). This is an identical pattern with regard to the sphere of the covenant. It is household in both cases.

Second, we cannot baptize infants since they are not regenerate (or saved, or have not confessed faith, etc). We don't know if they will grow up to be Christians.

It has been my contention throughout this series that baptism is not a sign given to regenerate people. We cannot know who is regenerate and who is not. We may be able to make a reasonable guess, but we cannot know for certain. Instead, the sign has always been commanded to a confessing people and their children. Let me put it this way. Abraham was saved by faith. Then the sign of God's promises to Abraham was given. This sign, which Gen 17 says is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, is then commanded for his 8 day old boys. So even though salvation was already by faith, the sign of membership in this community of faith was commanded for those that could not express faith. If God worked this way in the OC, why can he not work this way in the NC? More to the point: God commanded this forever in Gen 17. This has never been repealed. "Forever" has never been clarified to mean: "for a little while." We have never been told our children are now excluded! I think this is crucial. God issued an explicit command forever and has never said children are now out. This idea is inferred by the Baptists from the lack of infant baptism examples in the NT. Should we ignore a command of God based upon an inference?

Furthermore, I will level the same charge at the Baptists: How can you baptize someone when they may not prove to be regenerate? Do you see how that works? This objection of the Baptists cuts both ways. Just because an adult can claim to have faith doesn't mean they won't turn out to be faithless (and unfortunately they sometimes do). Just because an infant can't confess doesn't mean they will turn out to be faithless. In neither case can we know. And praise be to God, he has not given us the task of discerning it. Even in the case of adult baptism, we give the sign to those that make a confession of faith with Christ as its object according to Scripture. We do not wait until we can prove their regenerate status (a task that is impossible for man).

Third, faith must precede baptism by NT example.

This is actually not much different from the first objection. And my answer will include a portion of my answer to the second. The NT examples do not exhaust everything there is to be said about baptism. This is clear from the fact that we also learn about baptism from non-narrative passages. Paul teaches about it in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, for example. What we learn from him there is more than we knew from just the 12 events recorded. Additionally, Isaac received the sign prior to faith. There can be no objection that salvation was somehow different under the OC. It certainly was not. When Paul says Abraham was saved by faith in Galatians 3:1-6, his point is that this is how God has always worked in salvation. So if faith did not have to precede the OC sign, why does it need to proceed the NC sign? Some biblical evidence must be provided that our children are not members of the covenant, or that they should now be excluded, otherwise the "forever" quality of the command in Genesis 17 compels us to give them the sign.

This objection is often brought up not only by general NT example, but specifically by Peter's instruction in Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized." Repentance (so the argument goes) precedes baptism. I believe this argument ignores the immediate context. Peter's audience was an adult audience. He was calling them to repentance. In such cases, faith does precede baptism. So this instruction is in no way contrary to what we would expect or teach ourselves in obedience to the Scripture. It is also, by the way, the pattern required in the OC for adult converts. Exodus 12:43-49 teaches that adults converting to faith in God must receive the sign. Their faith precedes their receipt of the sign. But this requirement is not extended to the children of those who are covenant members. In fact, notice that once this gentile has expressed his faith and received the sign, so does the rest of his household. This pattern is quite familiar to those who have read of the household conversions in Acts. The head converts and receives the sign, followed immediately by the application of the sign to his household.

Fourth, infant baptism is a late doctrine not found in the early church. Therefore it must be a corruption that snuck in after the apostles.

"Late" is such a tricky word. Is 100 years after the disciples too late? Now be careful. I didn't say this is when the practice started. This is the earliest attestation. There is no reason to believe it didn't start with the apostles. Baptists often point to these early sources and say this is when it started. That would be like pointing to the earliest reference to "Trinity" (Tertullian, late 2nd, early 3rd century) and saying this is when Trinitarianism started. I'm going to do a separate post in the coming days dedicated just to the historical evidence for infant baptism. But this is good stuff. We not only have evidence that it occurred. We have the testimony of the Fathers from this very period of the early church that they believed it was connected to circumcision. Did you catch that? The view of Presbyterians that circumcision is the precursor to baptism isn't a new idea. The New Covenant theologians might want you to think it only came along with the advent of Covenant Theology in the 17th century. But it turns out that we have evidence that the church linked baptism and circumcision logically at least as far back as the early 3rd century (200 to 250). That's 1800 years! And lest you are left thinking 3rd century sounds late: It's just over 100 years after the last apostle died! It's at or perhaps less than 200 years after Christ was crucified. And as far back as 200 or thereabouts we have writings from the Fathers that indicate it was being practiced as the normal practice all over the Christian world. What is more feasible: The Presbyterian argument that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and we don't have any writings on it until 100 years after they died? OR the Baptist argument that within 100 years of the last apostle a great mistake has been made and adopted throughout the Christian world in which they baptize their infants contrary to the apostles, and we don't have so much as a letter or a book from anyone at the time decrying this great mistake?

History alone can't prove paedobaptism. But let's be very careful about believing the argument that history doesn't support infant baptism. Of the two options, history is far kinder to the view of covenantal infant baptism. It not only has early support, it is the practice of the vast majority of the church throughout church history. So if we look back over 2000 years of church history, we find that most Christians practiced infant baptism throughout this period. Again, I'll post a survey of some of the most significant historical references in the very near future.

(Edit: The post is up. You can read it here.)

Finally, the theological system of Covenantal Theology is wrong. Since this is the system upon which the doctrine of infant baptism is based, and since it is not the system taught in Scripture, the paedobaptist is wrong.

Another way to say this is: If we can prove that CT isn't true, then we have undermined the entire Presbyterian argument for infant baptism. I'm willing to concede this point for the sake of argument. I disagree, however, that CT is not biblical. Anyone making such an argument has some burden to demonstrate how and where the system fails to account for some portion of Scripture. And the responsible thing is to offer some better system in return. Those who raise this objection attempt to do both. The system they offer is usually referred to as New Covenant Theology. I won't offer a critique of this system here. We've discussed this at length in the comments under a previous post. My friend, Jay Bennett, is also critiquing this view as published by Dr. Stephen Wellum. This writing is widely recognized by Baptists as the best argument they have yet put forward. I look forward to Jay's unfolding response.

In short, however, I will offer this critique. The fundamental argument of NCT is that the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled, and in so doing, has completely abrogated (undone) all previous covenants. They also point to Hebrews 8 to support this view. This argument must be addressed (and has been, for example here). But it is not proving to be a difficult argument. The CT view is more nuanced and takes into account the broader testimony of Scripture. The NCT view is too optimistic about our current condition, making it difficult to explain our future hope if the NC in which it was promised has already been perfectly fulfilled. I'd encourage you to read Wellum, then read Jay.

The bottom line: If you are already a convinced CT, infant baptism is the only consistent position you can hold. If you deny infant baptism, you need to go back and reconsider your understanding and commitment to CT. Your only basis for denying infant baptism is a fundamental disagreement with the basic premise of CT: There is one eternal covenant of which the biblical covenants are unfolding revelations (Abraham, Moses, David, and New). My point in this paragraph isn't to draw lines and try to push anyone into or out of a particular group or label. But if you attend a Presbyterian church and willingly embrace covenant theology, but reject infant baptism, I'm sounding a little alarm for you. You need to rethink some things.

In the final post I will summarize my argument with proof texts (at least that's the plan!).

A Response to Wellum

Under a post or two below, Blake White has interacted with my baptism series, suggesting I read Dr Stephen Wellum's "Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants". This has been recommended several times as the most effective critique of the covenantal infant baptism argument. I'm not in a position right now to offer a response to Wellum, but I would like to point you to a critique being published by my close friend, Jay Bennett. Jay has accepted a call to minister in the PCA in the St. Louis area and will be moving up there in the coming months. Without having read all of it (he's still getting to the meat of Wellum's argument), I am confident Jay's answer will be quite devastating to the Baptist critique of our view. Wellum's arguments are not new, but are only the usual arguments, well-crafted. I think you'll find Jay's style and substance quite persuasive.

As for my baptism series: I haven't forgotten about it. I'm working on the next post and hope to be done soon. I took the weekend off and haven't had a moment to get back to it yet. Part of it is a historical argument and I want to get my ducks in a row before publishing it. It's easier to do historical research poorly than just about anything else, and often with more devastating effects. Look for something in the next day or so.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

This final installment will conclude my argument proper. All that is left is to demonstrate that circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant. Christ instead has commanded baptism as the sign of membership in the covenant. This final post will be considerably shorter for this reason: As I will argue, I don't think Baptists disagree with this point (although they might protest a bit).

I think we all agree that there is a sign of membership, and that this sign is baptism. If you are a Baptist and you disagree, speak up! I think there may be some that will argue about this, but in the end they implicitly agree. Why do I say that? Because every Baptist church of which I have ever been a member or of which I have ever heard requires baptism in order to be admitted as a member. Since they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, it is perfectly consistent to argue that they see this as a sign of entrance and membership into the covenant community. This is further established by the argument that they make with regard to Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8. Their argument is that we cannot give baptism to infants because infants are no longer members of the covenant community. This argument assumes that baptism is the sign of covenant membership. Otherwise it is hard to see what support Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 has to offer the Baptist argument. And since we both agree that Baptism is now the sign of covenant membership, I'm not compelled to make an extended defense of the point in this post.

There is a finer point that will come up, however. Since we (and here I mean Presbyterians) believe that it is a sign of covenant membership, and since we believe (as do the Baptists) that circumcision was the OC sign of membership, we Presbyterians believe it is legitimate to take the principles found in the narrative surrounding baptism and bring those principles forward to the NT. This is legitimized by a single little word in the Hebrew of Genesis 17: Olam. Forever. While the outward form of the sign has changed, the thing signified has not. The covenant established with Abraham is an eternal covenant. It has Christ as its head (the one through whom the promises of the covenant are fulfilled). As such, the sign is commanded forever. So although that outward form changed, the principles underlying it did not. It is for our children. It is forever. It is about God's faithfulness to his promises, not about being our public profession of faith.

(On a side note, wouldn't circumcision be an odd sign to use for a public profession?)

Baptists, who, as I've demonstrated above, do see baptism as a sign of membership in the people of God, and do believe that circumcision was this sign in the OT, often do not wish to draw a parallel between the two signs. This is typically for two reasons. First, they do not believe that the church is Israel. They believe there are two people of God in redemptive history. Circumcision was the sign for Israel. Baptism is the sign for the church. If they were correct about God having two people, this might be a formidable argument. However, as we have seen, the division of the one people of God is a terrible mistake of exegesis and cannot be sustained. In fact, fewer and fewer dispensationalists (the group that started this theory) are even trying to argue for the separation anymore. They have incrementally withdrawn from this position over the past 50 years.

An alternative reason for softening or disregarding any parallels is a view called New Covenant Theology. This view uses Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 in order to make the argument that the one people of God is now entirely composed of regenerate people. These passages speak of a New Covenant that God will make with his people. Under this New Covenant the people will no longer be covenant breakers. They will no longer need to teach one another to know God because they will all know God. Hebrews 8 says that this New Covenant has superceded the Old Covenant, and is better than the OC. For this reason, these Baptists will argue that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 has been completely fulfilled. The one people of God is now only the regenerate. And since the composition has changed, commands with regard to the circumcision of infants are no longer valid. (I've yet to get any answer to the question of what God meant in Gen 17 when he said your infants are to receive the sign "forever").

There are several problems with this view. First, the prophecies of Jeremiah have only been partially fulfilled. Certainly the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Christ (Luke 22:20). This has made certain aspects of the NC a present reality. But it has not changed the makeup of the community, which is still a visible community composed of regenerate and unregenerate people, as I've argued from Scripture (Matthew 13, 1 John 2:19). While those espousing the NC view often accuse us of an under-realized eschatology (in other words, failing to recognize that the promises are ours now), Scripture and experience tell us that theirs is in fact an over-realized eschatology (they claim too much for themselves right now). We instead find that the promises of Jeremiah are finally fulfilled in Rev 20-22. As for Hebrews 8, most of the most widely read and highly appreciated commentaries are in agreement: The OC is passing away, but is not yet deceased.*

The second problem with this view is that it makes it impossible to appropriately administer baptism. Since baptism is a sign given to the covenant community, and since (by their view) this community is only made up of the regenerate, and since we cannot know who is regenerate, then how can the sign be applied to anyone? Baptism is a visible sign. It must be applied to a visible community. But the New Covenant view of the community is that it is invisible. And here's the kicker: So they must apply the sign to the visible community. They argue that the sign is only for the invisible community, but are forced to apply it to the visible. You can feel their tension when they speak of trying to overcome this. They speak of doing their best to make sure the person is regenerate. While admirable in its own way, this only highlights the problem. Despite their best efforts, they admittedly will make mistakes. And for those that have been in the Baptist church, you will probably recognize how rampant these mistakes can be. Here is an article just written by a Baptist pointing to the problem of rebaptism in their churches, just as an example. If the standard for baptism is regeneration, no Baptist should baptize anyone with a clear conscience. And their attempts to separate the weeds from the wheat seem contrary to Christ's instruction in Matthew 13 (a parable about the kingdom, which is the church). The closest the NT comes to giving us license to do this is only after they are members, and then we call it discipline. Even this, however, is not based upon regenerate or unregenerate status. Otherwise, not knowing their status, we could never exercise discipline! Instead it is based upon covenant keeping and covenant breaking.

Additionally, Paul connects the concepts of circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. He says the Christians at Colossae had been circumcised. But this circumcision was not physical, it was spiritual. It was the circumcision of the heart spoken of in the OT. But when? When had this happened? Paul says in vs 12 it happened when they were buried with Christ in baptism. Paul says they were circumcised by baptism. This links the two signs in a significant way. It equates them as to their meaning. True circumcision in the OT was circumcision of the heart. But this is no sign (since it is invisible!). The sign of such was given to the visible community. Being buried with Christ in baptism (the spiritual reality of it) is no sign. It's the invisible reality that must be signified. But we give this visible sign itself to the visible community. Just as the two (circumcision and baptism) are spiritually the same, they are connected in their physical application as well.

So it appears that the argument isn't really about whether or not baptism replaced circumcision. Both sides agree that both are signs of covenant membership, and Paul connects the two logically in Colossians. So in some sense it certainly did. The argument is really only about who should receive this sign. I have tried to establish in my previous posts that children were once commanded by God to receive it forever, and that nothing has since transpired to rescind that order. Therefore our children are to receive the sign, and that sign is baptism.

As I said, this concludes my argument proper. In my next post I will line up some of the most common Baptist arguments and offer a response. In my conclusion I will offer the entire argument summarized in a single paragraph with Scripture proofs as applied in these posts.

* Harold Attridge (Hermeneia); Philip Hughes (Eerdmans); Paul Ellingworth (New International Greek Testament Commentary) to name but a few.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant)

In the previous three parts, I attempted to make this argument:

The one people of God in redemptive history is an invisible covenant community (composed only of the regenerate) that manifests itself visibly (as a covenant community made up of regenerate and unregenerate people). The sign of membership in this community is commanded to be given to all children born into the visible community (Gen 17) forever. Scripture teaches that one day this community will take a visible form that consists only of the regenerate (Jeremiah 31). However, that day has not yet come and will not come until judgment (Matthew 13; 1 John 2:19). Since the covenant community, then, still has an invisible and visible form; and since the sign was commanded to be given to the visible community (of which children are explicitly a part); and since there has been no repeal of this command or indication that children are not still a part of the community; we must give the sign to our children.

It is this last part that I want to establish from Scripture in this post. As a reminder, I am aware that there are Baptist arguments to these things and I intend to address them in the last post or two in this series.

So, the children born to community members are to receive the sign, since they are still considered members of the visible covenant community to which the sign has been given (by God's command forever).

Are our children still members of the visible covenant community? Please keep in mind that "still" is a key word in this sentence. We do not have to establish that God has worked this way among his one covenant people in redemptive history. He undoubtedly has. Abraham being saved by grace, through faith, received the sign afterward. But Isaac, a child of promise (together with all male offspring in Abraham's line forever) is commanded to receive this sign prior to faith. Some in the OT fell away from the visible community because they were not members of the invisible community (sound like 1 John 2:19?). This potentiality did not keep God from commanding that those born into the community receive the sign.

So if God was working this way, and commanded that it be this way forever, on what basis can we stop calling our children members of the visible covenant community and therefore withhold the sign from them? I submit that we would need some compelling evidence. Complete silence in asserting their continued membership would not be enough. We need a positive command or instruction to stop giving them the sign; to stop calling them covenant children.

Simply put, no such command or instruction exists. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that children are no longer members. Nowhere are we told to stop giving them the sign. The entire Baptist argument hangs on this: Jeremiah 31 teaches (and Hebrew 8 confirms) that the community now only consists of the regenerate. I am currently answering this argument in the comments section of Part 2, here.. Baptists then argue that since it is only made up of the regenerate, it must exclude our children. They then complete the argument by asserting that we cannot give the sign to those that aren't regenerate, and therefore aren't community members. I believe this argument is biblically and logically inconsistent. I'll come back to it in my last few installments. For now I want to show that not only is there no command or instruction to stop calling them covenant members and giving them the sign, but we find them being referred to in covenantal terms in the NT.

These passages and their use by Presbyterians are no secret. Baptists have been listening to Presbyterians quote them for years. I have tried to be careful to frame my use of them in a way that Baptists will find compelling. As a Baptist, I found that Presbyterians often failed to take the Baptist paradigm into account when arguing these passages, and so their arguments fell flat for me. I may not be any more successful, but I have tried to recognize this at least.

Acts 2:38-39. In this passage, Peter, preaching the gospel, asserts that the covenant promises are for them (the Jews), their children, and all who are far off. Here we find the two categories of covenant member in Gen 17 and Exodus 12:48-49: Israel and her children, and those born outside Israel. These are those to whom the covenant belongs and who are therefore members of that community.

Here is a crucial aspect of the argument. If we hear Peter as his Jewish audience heard him, we will find something quite interesting. Israel received the command to circumcise their children as covenant members around 1700 years before Peter preached. So for 1700 years (obedient or not) Israel had been taught by God's law that her children belonged to the covenant community and should receive the sign. This Jewish audience of Peter has just heard him reiterate this relationship between the children and the covenant. If you had been there, knowing the law of God, would you hear Peter and assume that children are no longer members of the covenant? I don't see how you could.

Let me put it a bit more starkly. If the baptists are correct, at Pentecost, the children of the 3000 converted, children who were covenant members up to the inauguration of the NC, were simultaneously excommunicated from the covenant community.* I am not trying to use shocking language in order to upset anyone. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that this would have been the effect, and it is a startling effect! These children (by the admission of both sides) would have been covenant members at least right up to the point at which the baptist believes the nature of the covenant people changed. At which point, according to the baptist view, children previously in the covenant community would have been removed.

As an alternative, Presbyterians believe that Peter at Pentecost has reiterated the OT shape of the community. He has connected the children of covenant members with the covenant community by identifying the promises as theirs. It is difficult to see how the Jews present would have come to any other understanding of Peter.

Acts 16. Furthermore in Acts 16 at Lydia's conversion as well as the Jailer's conversion, both households are given the sign despite no reference to their regenerate status. We are told that Lydia (the head of her household) believed (16:14). As a result, her entire household received the sign (16:15). In 16:34, it is again the Jailer's faith that is pointed to as the basis for all the baptisms in his house. In both cases language is used that is inclusive of the entire family. In fact, in the case of Lydia the language inplies everyone living under her roof, descended from her or not. This is the import of the "household" language. In the Jailer's case, it says "all his family." There is no reason to believe that any are excluded. Baptists often point out that we don't know if there were children present. I think this misses the point. The baptism of the household and family follows from the conversion of the head. Why should this exclude infants? The baptist answer is that infants can't have faith and repentance. But we do not see faith and repentance from the family members of any age in these two stories. I'm not arguing there was none. I'm pointing out that the author didn't feel it important to say so. It was enough to point out that the head had converted, and therefore the entire household received the sign. This is completely continuous with Gen 17! (see also 1 Cor 1:16)

1 Corinthians 7:14. Paul uses this same paradigm in 1 Corinthians 7. He says that the converted status of one parent makes the children of that marriage holy. We do not believe Paul is here saying they are regenerate. In what sense, then, are they holy? In the same sense that children of covenant members have always been holy, or set apart. They are covenant members themselves.

Ephesians 6:1-4. Consider Paul's instruction to children here. Baptists will dismiss this passage since the children seem to be old enough to take instruction, but this fails to take the context into account. Paul is reiterating the covenant command and promise given to Israel in Exodus 20:12. The gentile children of the Ephesians believers are treated as the covenant children of Israel in Exodus. Paul does not recognize any difference in status. Furthermore, children are capable of receiving instruction much earlier than most Baptists will grant an age of accountability. In other words, a two year old can receive instruction (and we should be giving it to them!). So Paul's instruction could conceivably be to children too young to have "made a decision." They are addressed (this is important) not as children who have made a decision, but as children who belong to covenant members and therefore are given the commands that belong to the covenant community.

I try to avoid arguments from silence. They are polemically weak. But this doesn't mean they are always without force. In this case, where is the confusion on the part of Israel? Where is the argument from the parents in Israel? Acts and the Epistles should contain some record of the dispute. Israel, for whom their children have been covenant members since Abraham, have just been taught that their children are no longer members until they confess faith! The 3 year old that was a moment ago a covenant member, is now no longer. Your 3 year old has been dismissed from the covenant until such time that they can confess faith. Would you silently accept that? Would you not hope to receive some authoritative instruction or teaching to this effect? Is this teaching anywhere in the NT? If it is implicit, why do we not see any careful teaching? Even if this was accepted submissively by the first Christians, you would at least expect it to require some careful teaching on the part of the apostles to those Jewish members of the church. Instead, there is not a deafening silence on the subject, but a clear continuity between the OT and NT. It teaches that our children are still members of the covenant community.

An example of such upheaval is the subject of circumcision itself as the sign. The sign is changed (again, I'll address this in a future post). It is no longer necessary to circumcise. Instead, the sign of membership is now baptism. The Jews in the church are a bit perplexed by this. Some even reject it. It requires the Jerusalem council to address this. Paul sets out to explain why this is so. Why is there no similar unrest and teaching with regard to the radical change in who receives the sign?

Conversely, Baptists (if they deny the covenant relationship between their children and God) are left with no other way to describe their children than as covenant strangers. Their children do not stand in any special relationship to God. They are the strangers of Ephesians 2:11-22, having no hope and without God in the world. This was not the position of the unregenerate infants in Israel; the circumcised. They had the promises of God and were raised up in them. The Baptist (it seems to me) cannot say this.

Conclusion. How can we argue that our children are no longer members of the visible covenant community when Scripture never says as much; never instructs us to treat them as strangers to the covenants of promise; never excuses us from giving them the sign that God commanded they receive forever in Gen 17; and instead reiterates their place in the covenant promises (Acts 2:38-39); speaks to them as though they are members just as much as the children in Israel (Exodus 20:12 and Eph 6:1-4); calls them "holy" by nature of their relationship to a covenant member (1 Cor 7:14); and uses the same language of household and the sign that is used with respect to Abraham (twice in Acts 16 and in 1 Cor 1:16)?

The sign is for the visible community, of which our children are still a part. Therefore we should give them the sign in obedience to the command of God.

*Thanks to Jay Bennett for pointing out this argument made by Westminster Divine, Stephen Marshall.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Three: The Sign)

In previous posts I have sought to establish that the people of God is a single community that stretches from one end of redemptive history to the other, and that this community has always been an invisible community (exclusively regenerate) expressed visibly as a community of both regenerate and unregenerate.

In this post we finally come to the sign of membership in this covenant people. God has graciously given a sign to his people that they are members of this redemptive community. I want to take a look at Genesis 17 and see what principles we find there with regard to the sign.

My assertion is that the sign is to be given to the members of the visible community forever.

Instead of quoting the passage here in its entirety, take a few moments to read Genesis 17. A recent reading of this will be a considerable help to you in following along. Based on this passage I want to make the following observations/assertions.

1) The covenant signified is an eternal covenant. (vs 7-9, 13, 19)
2) This covenant is with Abraham and his offspring, forever. (vs 7-10, 12)
3) The sign given is circumcision, and the sign (circumcision) and the thing signified (the covenant) are so inseparable as to be called the same thing (vs 10).
4) The sign is given to 8 day old boys, prior to their confession of faith. (vs 12)
5) Therefore, all children born to the community (not just Abraham, but to his household) are covenant members (vs 12).
6) All members receive the sign regardless of apparent regenerate status. (vs 10, 12, 13, 23, 27)
7) The sign is commanded forever with repercussions for disobedience. (vs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

We can add two more insights from the instructions given for Passover in Exodus 12:43-49...

7) Any foreigner wishing to convert to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob must first receive the sign of membership in the community (circumcision). (vs 48)
8) Having done this, he ceases to be a foreigner. (vs 48-49)

So the one covenant people of God is given a sign of their membership (circumcision). This sign is to be administered to all members of the visible community, both those born into it and those coming by confession. And this is to be done forever.

We should note, however, that already in the history of redemption salvation is by grace through faith. Paul reminds us of this in Galatians 3:1-6. So the above observations are true of a community in which salvation is by grace through faith, just as is true for us now.

Once again, I'm not aware of any particular disagreement between credobaptists (those that only baptize confessors) and paedobaptists (those that also baptize covenant children) on these points with regard to what was true in the OT. And in fact, baptists teach and practice in perfect accordance with these points with regard to foreigners converting. And this brings us to a crucial point. Baptists teach that now there is only one way to join the community: Adult conversion.

Put another way, our children are no longer members of the covenant community according to baptist doctrine. And it is on this basis that they refuse the sign to their children who have not made a confession.

On what basis do they teach that children are no longer members of the covenant? On the basis that the covenant community, which they admit in the OT was visible and mixed, is now only made up of regenerate people. I want to be careful here. You see, baptists admit that the church is a mixed group, and that they give the sign to unregenerate people (unknowingly). I must admit to being confused about this. I don't see how they can refuse the sign to their children on the basis of their not being regenerate, then give the sign to people of whom a percentage will prove not to be regenerate. I don't see how they can give the sign only to the invisible community. And that's the crux. They claim the sign is only for the invisible community, then administer it to a visible community. And if they are willing to concede that they administered it to a visible community, why not recognize the biblical pattern of including children in the visible, covenant, community?

I have sought to establish that the sign is to be given to the members of the visible community forever. This certainly seems to be true on the basis of Genesis 17. It was certainly true in the OT period, and if we take "forever" seriously, I think we must at least contend with the possibility that this means until the weeds are finally pulled from the wheat and Christ's bride is glorified.

So let me summarize my argument up to this point. There is only one people of God in redemptive history. This one people is an invisible community (made up only of regenerate people) that manifests itself visibly as a community composed of both regenerate and unregenerate people. Despite this mix, God has commanded that the sign of membership in this community be given to this people forever, including their children.

So the next question is, "Are our children still members of the covenant community? Has something happened to exclude them?" I will attempt to answer that in my next installment.

A preview of my argument:
If my argument up to this point is true, and we find that children are still members of the visible covenant community, then we must give them the sign of membership. This sign is baptism (which I will seek to establish as well in a future post in this series).

If you're reading along and seeking to understand, I hope you will please comment or send me an email! Have a great weekend everyone! I'll be back late Saturday.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Two: The Nature of the Community)

I want to perhaps pick up the pace in this post. I'd like to go ahead and make the basic argument and see what kind of questions you have. My last post didn't generate any discussion, so I assume we are all on the same page. With that, let's move forward.

Not only is there only one people of God in redemptive history, the nature of this people has not changed. Of course there was, at the time of Christ, a tremendous inclusion of gentiles. This was foreseen and foretold in the OT and realized in the NT. But these gentiles, as we saw in the last post, joined the one people of God. They did not replace them, nor are they a second people of God. So the other question we must ask, is did the character of this one people of God change with Christ's ministry? Specifically, was it a mixed community in the OT (elect and non-elect), but a pure community now? Those who baptize only adults argue (taking one of several different tacks) that the character did change and now indeed only the regenerate are members of the community. In other words, the community is no longer mixed. It's important that we come to some agreement on this before moving to the next part of our argument.

There is certainly some truth to the argument of the baptists. It is true that there is a community comprised only of the regenerate. We call this the invisible church. Since baptism is a visible sign, however, and since we cannot know who is regenerate (thus the nomenclature: invisible), there is a problem with this view. How do you properly identify members of an invisible community? The fact that baptists have members fall away (from the faith) at least as often as paedobaptist churches, would seem to indicate that ocasionally they give the sign to one who is not elect.

Instead, we recognize that this invisible church has a visible manifestation. And the nature of that visible manifestation is that it is mixed. Before proceeding, we all need to come to agreement on this (or you need to at least understand it). The one people of God throughout redemptive history has always been an invisible community (exclusively regenerate) manifested visibly by a mixed community. This did not change as a result of Christ's earthly ministry.

Most baptists will agree that this principle is clearly true in the OT. The visible community had men and women that demonstrated themselves not to be of faith. They were in the visible community, but were not regenerate. Esau, for example, was not only a child of Abraham, but of Isaac as well. As such, he would have been circumcised. The text doesn't say that he was. But whether he was or wasn't is frankly beside the point. According to the command of God to Abraham in Gen 17, he should have been. Here we clearly have a covenant member who by the command of God should have (and probably did) receive the sign. Yet, Paul describes Esau as one who is not elect in Romans 9. Again, this is a generally accepted principle.

However, once we come to the NT, there is the assumption that this community is no longer mixed. This is based upon Jeremiah 31. For those that like to read, check out The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, chapters 7 and 8, edited by Gregg Strawbridge. For those wrestling with this, I highly recommend the entire work. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a New Covenant. In verses 31-34 particularly, this covenant is described in wonderful terms. The covenant people won't break this covenant. The law will be written on their hearts. There won't be any need to teach one another to "Know the Lord" because they will all know Him from the least to the greatest.

Christ at the supper says, "This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." So Christ, in his death, inaugurated the New Covenant. This leads baptists to argue that we are no longer a mixed community. All the promises of Jeremiah 31 have come true. Therefore this community only consists of those who have the law written on their hearts, etc. In other words, it only consists of the regenerate. Therefore we can only give the sign to the regenerate.

In response, those who practice paedocommunion argue that Jeremiah 31, while new in a sense, is not new as though all the other covenants are null and void. God's covenant with Abraham was a covenant forever. The promises made there are the promises Paul says are now ours in Eph 2:11-22. The New Covenant didn't supercede the previous covenants, it was the further revelation of the one covenant of grace. Notice the other covenants didn't supercede either: The Mosaic (Exodus 19-24) didn't supercede Abraham. The Davidic (2 Samuel 7) didn't supercede Moses. As such, it also has a curious quality. It is "already" and "not yet". The covenant has been cut, to be sure. It is being fulfilled, but is not yet completely fulfilled. As the warning passages in Hebrews clearly indicate, it is possible to break covenant in this age. But Jeremiah 31 says we won't break covenant anymore. We are still required to say to our neighbor and to our brother (not to mention our children), "Know the Lord!", but according to Jeremiah 31, this won't be necessary anymore. Jeremiah 31 describes the glorified state, which is in the midst of becoming a reality! So we say it is already, but not yet. (This distinction is not limited to Presbyterians but is widely recognized by many scholars and pastors from a broad group of traditions)

Furthermore, Christ clearly teaches in Matthew 13:24-30 that the church is to be mixed and shall remain that way until the harvest.

So we have, in the NT church, a community that is still visible and invisible. The visible is still a mix of elect and non-elect. I'm going to stop this post here and pick up with the next. We'll look at the sign itself and that will be the end of my argument proper. I'll then address the most common baptist objections. Post your questions or arguments in the comments section. Again, I'm going to wait a day or two before posting the next segment.

The Sign of the Covenant (Part One: One Covenant People of God)

The premise I want to assert in this post is that Scripture teaches that there is only one people of God throughout redemptive history.

To some this may sound strange. Maybe you've never thought about it or maybe you've just assumed it. But I can't take that chance. We need to proceed (as much as possible) in agreement on this fact. So what do I mean and can I prove it from Scripture?

I mean that Scripture is held together by a central theme: God is glorifying himself by redeeming his people from their sin by means of a redeemer; that the phrase there, "his people", means that the object of his redemptive acts (in other words, those to whom he has made the promise to redeem them, and to whom he is keeping his promise) are a single community, defined by their relationship to God: He is redeeming them.

Now the Old Testament case is pretty straight forward. In fact, as far as I know, everyone on both sides of the argument can agree on this: In the OT, there is only one people of God. That people is Israel. God calls them his special possession in Deut 7:6...“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

This is also easily demonstrated by the entire OT narrative. God is the God of Israel. He gives them a land, a law, is their King, blesses those that bless them and curses those that curse them. He punishes them as a father does his children and then destroys those nations that he used as the instrument of judgment. I don't think I need to belabor this point. If you need more evidence, please let us know in the comments section.

One last point. God uses an important metaphor when speaking of his people in the OT. He calls them his bride. In Hosea they are a wife unfaithful to him. Isaiah uses this imagery to speak of
Israel several times. 62:5 is one such example: “For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.” Jeremiah uses this as well in 2:2 and 2:32.

The argument, however, arises once Christ has finished his earthly ministry. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we come to the Acts of the apostles. In this Scripture we find the gospel going out to the gentiles and what seems to be a new designation, the Church. Is this church separate from Israel? This is important. If we answer no, they are not a separate people, they are part of the one people of God, then that continuity will give us a very particular perspective on the OT. When God speaks to Israel in the OT, he speaks to his ONE people. What he has said to them, he has said to us. If we say yes, they are separate from Israel, then this discontinuity will cause us to more easily dismiss much of what is said in the OT. I don't mean we will ignore it. But it will be a message for "them" in many regards and not for "us". So what do we find?

Paul teaches in Romans 11 that the gentiles have been grafted into the tree which is Israel. Look at 11:17 and 24. The gentiles are grafted in. The tree (in 24) is "their own" (that is, Israel's). Notice there are not two trees. There is one tree just as there is one people of God. And what makes them one people? It is the root they share. The root is Christ. (11:18)

Keep reading. Look at 11:25-26. Paul distinguishes between ethnic Israel and gentiles in v25. A partial hardening has come upon Israel (that is, ethnic)* until the fullness of the gentiles has come in. But in vs 26 Paul uses Israel in speaking of both together! "And in this way, all Israel will be saved."

"And" obviously connects the thought to the previous verse. "In this way" refers to the partial hardening of the Jews so that all the elect among the gentiles can be brought in. The result of these two actions, the hardening and the coming in is that "all Israel will be saved." To say it another way, the reason there is a partial hardening is so that the gentiles will come in and therefore all Israel will be saved, since without the elect gentiles, some of Israel would be lost. If Paul is applying the term Israel to the gentiles in the NT, how can we argue that they are not part of the one people of God?

But we aren't finished yet! Go to Ephesians 2:11-22. Paul here teaches that the gentiles "were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." That's pretty strong language. What is the situation of these gentiles (at the church at Ephesus) at the time that Paul is writing to them? Look at vs 13. "BUT, NOW in Christ Jesus you who once were far off [as he has just described in the previous verses] have been brought near [the opposite of being far off, and therefore the opposite of everything Paul had just asserted about their previous condition] by the blood of Christ." So what is the opposite condition? These gentiles are now united to Christ, citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, recipients of the covenants of promise, having the only sure hope and the God of Israel as their God. This is not a separate people of God, but a people that has been joined to the one people of God. And in case we missed it, Paul says it outright for us in vs14-15. "For he himself is our peace, who has made us BOTH ONE and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility...that he might create ONE NEW MAN in place of the two, so making peace." Is there any doubt that God only has one covenant people? One people to whom he has made the promise of redemption and in whom he is working out this promise?

Let me close by bringing you back to the OT image of a bride. God's people, Israel, are to him a bride in the OT. In Revelation the church is called the bride no fewer than four times: 19:7, 21:2, 21:9, and 22:17. If Israel and the church are not the one people of God; if they are not one and the same "person", then what are we to make of God's calling us both his bride?

The reference in Rev 19 is in the context of the wedding supper of the Lamb. The Lamb is Christ. The bride is his church. The two are finally to be joined in an amazing celebration that is clearly part of the culmination of redemptive history! Those that teach two separate peoples of God also teach that this supper takes place in heaven during the Great Tribulation when God's other bride, Israel, is still on the earth. Does this make sense to you? It is especially confusing when one considers that the image of a wedding feast is entirely Jewish. This image steeped in Jewish cultural meaning will not be attended by God's bride, Israel. Instead, it will be attended by his other bride, the Church. I'll leave it to you to work out the disturbing implications of this.

Scripture teaches that there is only one people of God throughout redemptive history.

This is my assertion. Are we all on board? If not, let me know. What passage(s) of Scripture do you think I have failed to take into account? I want to make sure we have a well-founded assertion that most of us can agree upon before we move on.

*I concede for the sake of argument that this is a reference to ethnic Israel in vs 25. Whether it is ethnic or not does not effect my argument. However, there is a case to be made that the reference is not to ethnic Israel, but to spiritual Israel. I have no interest in wrestling with that in this context.

The Sign of the Covenant OR Why We Baptize Our Covenant Children (Introduction)

This is the first post in a new series on baptism. There are several specific questions surrounding Baptism such as its mode (sprinkle, pour, or "dunk"?) and the proper object of baptism (children and adults, or only adults?). Jared Nelson has published an outstanding review of the modes and their basis over at Dead Theologians. This series, however, is primarily concerned with the latter. I will seek to establish that it is not only reasonable but even biblical and therefore proper that children are to receive the sign of the covenant by the fact of their birth to a parent who is a covenant member in good standing. In other words, I'm hoping to offer a convincing argument that the Presbyterian view is biblical. If it isn't convincing to you, the reader, then perhaps it will at least serve as an explanation of our view.

I recommend several resources if you are interested in giving this a serious go. The first is a book edited by Gregg Strawbridge, entitled The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. This is a series of essays addressing many of the best arguments for and the most common arguments against, covenantal infant baptism. I also recommend a little pamphlet by Jay Adams entitled The Meaning and Mode of Baptism. There are other good works out there and as I recall them or other Presbyterian brothers here point them out to me I will edit this part of the post. I may even provide a more thorough reading list at the end.

The outline* for my argument will be:

Part One: The One Covenant People of God
Part Two: The Nature of the Covenant People
Part Three: The Sign
Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant
Part Five: Answering Baptist Objections (perhaps in two or three parts)
Conclusion

* This outline will change as we proceed. It's a working outline that will help me keep myself pointed in the right direction.

When I have this conversation with Baptists, they are often confused with how I start. Instead of baptism, I begin with the subject of covenant. It doesn't seem to be related to them. This is because they have usually not been taught the theological concept of covenant. This is a crucial foundation for the Presbyterian view.

The issue isn't as simple as "No babies get baptized in the Bible, so it can't be right." We're going to have to take a more complete view of the Bible than that.

As I publish a post, I'm going to wait for some discussion below it. The series is structured as a series of premises. If you accept each premise then by the end you should understand, if not agree with, the Presbyterian view. By allowing the discussion to simmer a bit for each premise, we can work out finer points I might have missed in the post, or I (or other readers) can offer more depth of defense for that premise. More importantly, though, I hope it will create a sort of workshop environment in which those really interested in understanding or even considering embracing the view can take a little time to absorb the argument and ask questions of their own before we charge off to the next premise. So don't be shy! No question is silly! Please ask your questions. You never know who also has the question and just can't bring themselves to post!

So if you're with me, let's go! I'll try to have the first post up in the next day or so.