Psalm 45 Publications

Any attempt to support credo-baptism from within the framework of Covenant Theology has its own unique set of difficulties with which to contend from the outset. While much has been written in support of credo-baptism, the preponderance of these writings have directed the bulk of their argumentation against the foundational premises of Covenant Theology. If the hermeneutic itself can be discounted, paedo-baptism must necessarily fall with it. This approach affords little help to those of us who are both reformed and baptistic. Does the general (although not ubiquitous) dearth of writings in support of credo-baptism within a Covenant-framework indicate a necessary antithesis between the two doctrines? We would argue that it does not; but in so arguing, we acknowledge the necessity to demonstrate that it does not. Before we address the question at hand, therefore, we will honestly address the historical solidity and continuity of paedo-baptism within reformed thinking, as well as the scriptural bases for the historic position. Only then will we attempt to demonstrate that the scriptures themselves, when interpreted with a Covenantal hermeneutic, ought to lead the interpreter to an understanding of Baptism as a sign and seal intended only for those who are able to give credible evidence of regeneration.

It takes little historical acumen to recognize that the major reformers themselves, as well as the clear majority of influential theologians who would consider themselves to be heirs of the doctrines of the Reformation, subscribed without hesitation to paedo-baptism, often in the most ardent of terms. It would be entirely superfluous to cite Calvin, Luther, Berkhof, Hodge, Warfield, and so on: the list that could be compiled is quite enormous, but the fact is so universally recognized as to be something of a non-issue. What must also be recognized, in spite of the contrary claims of certain Baptist and other credo-baptist historians, is that the earliest records we have of the post-apostolic church fathers indicate an almost universal tradition of infant baptism which must have been quite early. At least by the time of Tertullian it had a nearly unexceptionable adherence, (although Tertullian himself argued against it, but on largely erroneous grounds(1)). We have some slight indication from the early second century Didache that infant baptism may not have been practiced in the apostolic era due to the fact that instructions for baptism demanded that the one to be baptized fast for one to two days prior to the baptism, which would be quite impossible for infants(2). However, this evidence is not at all conclusive. At the least we must acknowledge an early and widespread acceptance of infant baptism, with a lack of conclusive historical evidence for the first century.

This early and persistent tradition is understandable as a reasonable attempt to maintain a necessary continuity between the doctrines and practices of the Old and New Testament covenant communities. We certainly must acknowledge that the first century church saw themselves as thetrue heirs and successors of the Old Testament church. After all, did not Jesus himself proclaim, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”?(3) And did not the apostles take great pains to demonstrate that their practice and doctrine was in direct continuity with that of the holy men of old?(4) Did not, moreover, the apostle Paul explain in unmistakable terms that Christian baptism was “the circumcision made without hands,” that is, “the circumcision of Christ”?(5) And if circumcision in the Old Testament signified the removal of the flesh and the entering into the covenant community, then is it not reasonable to assume that Christian baptism, signifying essentially the same realities, ought to be observed with the same circumstantial characteristics, to as great a degree as possible? In other words, would it not be an easy supposition for an early church with a very real sense of being the true children and heirs of Abraham to follow the covenant rituals in much the same way as the true children of Abraham before them?

As much as we would like to assume this purity of motives at the beginnings of the tradition of paedo-baptism, we are nevertheless confronted with an undeniable fact that, very soon the custom had lost these basically scriptural designs, and retained only the crudest mysticism and superstition. At least as early as the writing of The Recognitions of Clement, baptism was conceived of as a mystical force with the power to expel demons ingested through meat sacrificed to idols, to quench the flame of sin that fiery demons have breathed into a man, and so on.(6) No doubt Augustine retained some of these superstitious understandings, particularly the belief still in vogue among Catholics today that baptism washes away original sin(7); and even Luther seemed unable to rid himself entirely of them(8). However, the Reformation, and Luther’s legacy in particular, was to be a driving force back to the foundational authority of the scriptures alone for the formulation of Christian beliefs and practices. When this movement had grown to full maturity, the result would be a multitude of exegetically competent and spiritually passionate men who would find within the pages of scriptures ample evidence for retaining the old practice of paedo-baptism, although shorn of its superstitious trappings. It is with the biblical bases of this later reformed dogma that we must above all interact.

The reformed case for infant baptism is basically a derived doctrine. Scriptures contain no explicit instructions to baptize the infant children of adult believers, although neither do they contain any clear command not to. The typical reformed case for baptism, therefore, in light of biblical silence on the topic, takes the shape of a syllogism: the covenant made with Abraham is still in effect among believers today(9); the symbolic entrance into the covenant community in the Old Testament took place at infancy(10); in the absence of any contrary evidence, therefore, the symbolic entrance into the Abrahamic covenant community today should take place in infancy. Given the additional information that baptism is described to us as “the circumcision of Christ”(11) (i.e. the symbolic entrance into the covenant community), the premise becomes, baptism should take place in infancy. Since the circumstantial change of entrance into the covenant inheres in the philosophy of credo-baptism (according to this basic understanding of scriptures), the burden of proof in the absence of clear scriptural teaching is on the credo-baptist to demonstrate convincing reasons for the change. Furthermore, they tell us, if even in the old, imperfect covenant the children were given the covenant privileges, it is scarcely reasonable that, in these days of more perfect fulfillment, the children would be stripped of the rights they once had to be full members of the covenant. These are some weighty concerns, and posited on a basically true understanding of scriptures. To deal with them, let us consider first the nature of the advancement that was prophesied (and effected) for the days of the inaugurated New Covenant.

In order to do this, we need to be clear on what was lacking and therefore needing improvement in the Old Covenant made with Moses. At the inauguration of the covenant on Mt. Sinai, God provided Israel with everything they needed to merit the covenant blessings: he favored them with the full expression of his law, written for all to observe it on tablets of stone; he assured them that, if they followed these precepts, set forth so clearly before there eyes, they would find life and blessing and favor with him. In the Old Covenant they had all the external things that were necessary for covenant blessings. They only lacked the heart to follow that external law. The law, so tangibly placed before them, would prove impossible for them to fulfill. Without getting into the specifics of the expressions of both law and gospel in the Mosaic era, we can at least posit a general summary: the law taught Israel of their need for one who could fulfill it for them. It taught them their need for one to go beyond the fact of writing God’s law on stone, and to write on the human heart. It taught them their need to look for one who, in continuity with the promise made to Abraham, would take the covenant obligations upon himself and merit the covenant blessings for his people. In the days of the Old Covenant, this was what was so conspicuously absent: a fleshy heart, spiritual eyes, true life that could live according to the demands of God’s holy law.

It is in fact on this precise point that the prophets signaled the qualitative difference between the covenant which was coming and the Mosaic Covenant then in force. Jeremiah clearly describes the New Covenant for us in this light:

Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, says Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from theleast of them unto the greatest of them, says Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.(12)

To this prophecy Ezekiel lends support as well, proclaiming the promise of God for the days of the New Covenant, namely,

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.(13)

What then is the nature of the benefits promised with regard specifically to the covenant community in the days of the New Covenant? Namely, that what was chiefly external in the Old Covenant was promised to be made internal in the New Covenant. But how exactly are we to understand this change? Can it be that no Israelite in the Old Covenant had a heart upon which God had written his law, spiritual life, or a new nature that desired fellowship with Christ? A simple perusal of the Davidic psalms would suffice to make us certain that this could not be the case. But if the Old Testament saints experienced regeneration and its benefits, how could the prophets be so emphatic on this one point of difference in the covenant that was coming? Whatever else we may come up with, we have to conclude that there was to be some essential difference in the overall purity of the professing covenant membership from the Old Covenant to the New. In other words, there must have been some sense in which Jeremiah and others could call the unregenerate participants in the Old Covenant, which he could not do with respect to the New. This is certainly implied by the fact that the Israelites broke the covenant due to the absence of God’s law in their heart. If they broke it, they must have been in some sense participants in it.

Indeed, all of Israel was included in a participatory sense in the Old Covenant. But mere formal inclusion was not enough. This was perhaps the ultimate point that unregenerate covenant Israel of the old era was designed to display. Israel as a nation was a sort of tangible picture book of coming spiritual realities, and, more than that, a blatantly obvious testimony to the inability of man to perform even the slightest necessary element of a conditional covenant. The remnant of true Israel alone partook of the actual spiritual realities which those pictures held forth, and kept the spirit of the law by virtue of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. But the days were coming in which a dramatic change was to be effected.

In what ways could the new covenant community be the heirs of Abraham, in full continuity with the old, and yet come fully to terms with the dramatic change that had been prophesied? From the days of John the Baptist, and throughout the writings of the New Testament, the answer becomes apparent. The true Israel, and Abraham’s true children, were in actuality to be those who were not so externally, but those who had participated in the spiritual realities of Abraham. Not those who were physically born to Abraham, but those who were spiritually born to him, were his genuine children and heirs.(14) Due to this prophesied change (the substitution of the mere shadows for the spiritual realities they prefigured, so that, if one had not experienced them he was not truly a member of the New Covenant), it would be a reasonable assumption that entrance into the New Covenant would be on the occasion of spiritual birth, i.e. regeneration, and not physical birth. Certainly this must be the case in actuality, and ought to be to as great a degree as possible in formal recognition. This is in fact the point of Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus. Being born physically was no longer sufficient for a man to lay claim to covenant participation. Those who did not do the things which Abraham did could not claim to be his children or his heirs(15). The only ones who could now claim to be citizens of the long-prophesied kingdom were not those who were physically born into it, but those who were born again. In the words of Christ, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”(16)

In the picture-book covenant of physical Israel, the official inauguration into the external covenant community took place immediately after birth, before its subject had given any indication of internal genuineness. However, to be consistent with the prophetic expectation of the New Covenant as a covenant dominated by internal genuineness, and in fulfillment of the old type of physical birth inaugurating one into an external covenant, it was necessary for spiritual birth to be the deciding factor for inauguration into a spiritual covenant. Circumcision followed physical birth, and signified the entrance into the covenant of laws on tablets of stone; baptism follows spiritual birth, and signifies the entrance into the covenant of God’s law written on hearts.

What we are arguing is that credo-baptism alone does justice to the prophetic expectation for the New Covenant, coupled with the teachings of John, Jesus, and the apostles. Seen in this light, the further evidence of the unexceptionable linking of the command to be baptized with the prior command to repent is somewhat more compelling. Each individual command is indeed addressed to unbelieving adults; but given the nature of the New Covenant, the situation could not have been at all otherwise: in order to be eligible for the sign of inauguration into the New Covenant, one must give evidence of spiritual life, i.e. he must repent. As it is impossible for infants to display such evidence, it is manifestly evident that no commands to be baptized would have been issued to infants. What is so striking, therefore, is not that we find the command to repent and be baptized issued only to adults, but that we find nowhere the accompanying command for those repentant adults to have their children baptized with them. Acts 2:38,39 is sometimes used this way, but without warrant: the command to be baptized is preceded by a command to repent, which would be impossible in the case of infants; and what was said to be for the parents and children was not the sign of baptism, nor yet the entrance into the covenant, but rather the condition prophesied by the prophet Joel that whoever should call upon the name of the Lord would be saved. Furthermore, the extension of this promise to the whole world (you, your children, and those who are afar off) was further qualified, so as to make certain that Peter was not speaking of all men without exception (or without evidence of God’s calling), but rather of all classes of men, from each of which would be some who would believe – hence the qualification, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”(17)

Perhaps the most compelling reason to understand baptism in this way comes from a close examination of Colossians 2, the passage which most clearly links the nature of baptism in this covenant with circumcision in the Old. Yes, baptism corresponds to circumcision: but in what essential point? Not in that of the temporal circumstances surrounding its administration, but in the vital reality which both were intended to convey – the putting away of the flesh. And in the New Covenant, this putting away of the flesh is viewed as an actual reality accompanying the baptism of faith. So that what is here said to accompany baptism – the putting off of body of the flesh by being buried with Christ, and the being raised up together with him – is in the same passage made contingent upon faith: it is a being raised up with him through faith in the effectual power of the one who raised Christ from the dead. What is accomplished symbolically through baptism is accomplished instrumentally through faith: and both of these qualitatively different means are linked together temporally, at the occasion of baptism.

1. Tertullian. “On Repentance.” in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson), Vol. 3, p. 662. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

   Cf. also Tertullian. “On Baptism.” in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson), Vol. 3, pp. 677-678. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

2. “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.”in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson), Vol. 7, p. 379. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

3. Matthew 5:17

4. cf. Romans 4:13-16; Galatians 3:8-29; Hebrews 8:10; 9:1-5

5. Colossians 2:11

6. “Recognitions of Clement.”in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson), Vol. 8, p. 116; 185. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

7. Augustine. “On Continence.” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Ed. Philip Schaff), Vol. 3, p. 386. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

8. As suggested by Louis Berkhof in Systematic Theology, p. 627. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.

9. Galatians 3:17; 23-29

10. Genesis 17:10-12

11. Colossians 2:11

12. Jeremiah 31:31-34

13. Ezekiel 36:26,27

14. Cf. John 1:12-14; Matthew 3:8,9; John 8:39; Romans 2:28,29; Galatians 3:29

15. John 8:39

16. John 3:3

17. Acts 2:28,29

44 Responses to “Credo-Baptism and Covenant Theology”

1. nathan says:

   November 10, 2005 at 1:37 pm

   It seems you’ve come to a conclusion about this subject. My wife and I are joining a Presbyterian church that already has Reformed Baptists in its midst. For a while I’ve wondered how that was even possible. Your article seems to have cleared that up. Simply put, only the regenerate are partakers in the New Covenant. That makes sense from the Scriptures you’ve analized.

   I have a couple questions: first, what of immersion? It’s a related topic that I have yet to be convinced of from Scripture.

   Second, I can understand the difference between the external working of God in the Old Covenant and the internal working of the Spirit in the New. One thing I don’t understand, though, is why new external signs (baptism, communion, the Church herself) were introduced if everything that happens in the New Covenant is internal. From what you’re saying, it seems as if there would no longer be a visible ‘people of God.’ We know this is not the case, though. Is it possible that you covered the external aspect of the Old and the internal aspect of the Old and New, but failed to recognize there is an outward, visible Church in the New that includes the families of believers? After all, there are all those passages that talk of whole households joining with the church (I’m not arguing baptism here, just the fact of whole households joining with the church when indication is given that only one of them believed).

   One of the aspects involved with including children/infants in the visible Church is the hope that they will continue in the teachings of the “true” Church and become regenerate themselves. If the infants and unregenerate children of believers are not included somehow in the Church’s roll, why do we drag them along every Sunday? Even the most dispensational among us agrees that children are to be raised in the Church. Why is this if they have no role? After all, if they are members of God’s elect, they will be saved regardless of whether they go to church with their regenerate parents.

   Also, I have observed many devout Baptists “dedicating” their baby to Christ in front of the church. The only difference between that and the recent infant baptism at our church was the water. The wording was almost identical. One group seems to do this just because they think it’s a good idea and the other does it because they believe it’s taught in Scripture. From a purely subjective standpoint, at least, the latter seems to hold more water. Please pardon my bald-faced pun.

   Almost you persuade me, but I wish to know more.
2. pitchford says:

   November 10, 2005 at 10:31 pm

   As far as immersion goes, there are enough passages like Romans 6 and Philippians 2 that would seem to indicate that the nature of the sacrament involves a necessary portrayal of Christ’s burial and resurrection. I’m not sure I can quite swallow everything my reformed friends tell me about the essential reality symbolized being purifcation/cleansing, not burial and resurrection with Christ. Cleansing is indeed a necessary element, but I think it’s also a necessary truth that genuine cleansing can only come through a putting to death of the old nature, and this can only come when we are crucified with Christ. So I would prefer immersion (not because of the etymology of the word “Baptizo”), but because I think it more clearly pictures what’s going on. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s the only acceptable form, or that certain exigencies such as age, illness, etc., wouldn’t cause a situation in which it would be better to sprinkle or pour, so long as the central message of putting to death the sinful nature by being buried with Christ, and being raised up in him to walk in newness of life, is at least verbalized (or pertinent scriptures are read).

   You do have a legitimate point in the fact that there necessarily has to be an external covenant community, that, regardless of all appearances, will never be entirely pure. There will be baptized, professing Christians who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as long as the church is still in this age.

   More to the point, there must be a substantially different nature in the relationship that children of believers have to God and the church from that which children of unbelievers have. I Corinthians 7, although not explicitly on the topic of baptism, is enough to make that basic truth patently clear. There must be a sense in which infant children of believers are sanctified to God in a way which would be abrogated should those children grow up in the care of unbelieving parents. But is it necessary that baptism be the symbol which conveys this truth? 1 Corinthians 7:14 indicates that, if one parent in a household is a believer, his/her part in parenting the children is sufficient to make them holy instead of unclean; however, if a separation occured so that, (presumably) the children were raised in the care of the unbelieving parent alone, they would be unclean. So my question is, if it’s baptism into the church which is the deciding factor in how an infant relates to the body of Christ (until the so called age of discernment, or whatever) then why would that status change variable to which parent they were being raised by? Wouldn’t Paul instead have said, if your unbelieving spouse leaves you, make sure your children are baptized first, or else they would be unclean, and not holy.”? In other words, there is a sense of inclusion of children into the covenant community, but it seems to be based on derivision from the parents alone, not on any outward symbol or formal rite of inclusion.

   As far as the purity of the church goes, although there always will be false professors, it seems that the NT model for inclusion into the church is to preach the gospel which demands repentance, and if anyone repents, accept their word at face value, and have them baptized into the church. If later they give serious cause for doubt, church discipline to the point of separation (e.g. I Corinthians 5, et al) is appropriate, although always with the hope and prayer that God will grant genuine repentance (as in 2 Timothy 2:25,26). Although this is in a large measure similar to the Old Covenant body, in that those who broke the covenant were then to be cut off as well, it has this difference that, initially it is no longer something one is born into, but something that people from every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation are brought into when they give evidence of truly being Abraham’s children. The basic point of inclusion is different (spiritual children vs. physical children), even though, due to human fallacy, the ideal of inclusion only of true spiritual children will not be realized until God himself separates the goat from the sheep.

   As far as the baby dedications, although I don’t see any real scriptural mandate for it, I think it is a legitimate issue that parents would be concerned to follow the instructions to raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and feeling their own inadequacy for such a task, I can see how they would want formally to seek God’s help and have the entire church body join in praying with them for such a mercy. If this is the heart behind a baby dedication, I have no problem with it, but if it’s an example of trying to do what baptism is actually doing, only not calling it baptism, then I agree that one might as well skip the facade and call it like it is.

   In summary, you’ve raised some legitimate concerns, and I don’t at all want to shrug them off because I already know what I believe (in the spirit of many in whose circles we have both run). However, I’m not sure if the solution that addresses those problems by baptizing infants might not raise more substantial problems. Can we admit a sense in which whole families are brought into the sanctifying influence of the church prior to (and hopefully towards the end of) regeneration and its symbol, baptism, which would then officially confirm, in light of a credible profession, the authenticity of that inclusion? And could we admit of a lack of absolute purity in the external church of this age, while still perceiving an essential difference in the basis for official inclusion?

   ‘Tis a sticky question indeed, but I am still finding myself pulled away from my dear friends Berkhof and Calvin on this precise point.
3. KingofPop says:

   November 11, 2005 at 1:55 am

   “In other words, there is a sense of inclusion of children into the covenant community, but it seems to be based on derivision from the parents alone, not on any outward symbol or formal rite of inclusion.”

   I’m not arguing that baptism is the catalyst for inclusion in the covenant, just as you are not arguing that baptism is the catalyst of regeneration. We are both saying that baptism is merely a sign. As you have also said, I Corinthians 7 indicates some extent of the children of believers receiving blessing. All I’m saying is that the baptism is a sign of that very thing (vs 14), not that it procures that thing. God doesn’t choose to accomplish anything in the church through physical magic. The only physical things we’re instructed to do are simply signs of spiritual realities. So it is with credo-baptism, as you’ve define it, and so it is with paedo-baptism. What I’m saying is that it is both possible to be included in the elect without baptism and it is possible to be a child member of a covenant family without baptism. That doesn’t change the internal. BUT, if baptism is a mere sign of a regenerational covenant that children share some blessings in, there’s at least the chance that it’s at least okay to baptize them.

   I believe passages like Romans 6 are indeed indicating more than cleansing is displayed in the sign of baptism. But I keep getting back to the fact that it’s a SIGN. Was the sign of circumcision intended to physically and literally picture the promise to Abraham? No. I don’t even want to wrap my mind around that one. Why then do we assume that baptism is supposed to as closely as possible resemble the physical process of death, burial and resurrection? When John began baptizing, the Jews were not even aware of such a concept. And when John began baptizing, there was no indication that he even proclaimed a proper method. I understand you’re not holding as hard to immersion as some, but you still indicated it was best.

   Obviously, for we Reformed [maybe or maybe not] Baptists, this is a difficult subject. In December, our current plan is to have our children baptized, but I’m definitely making sure that the Spirit is convincing me from Scripture before I go ahead with it. Your points are definitely well taken. God bless you.
4. nathan says:

   November 11, 2005 at 1:56 am

   Sorry, I use the name “KingofPop” on some sites. That’s just me. – nathan fitzsimmons
5. pitchford says:

   November 11, 2005 at 8:47 am

   I guess one of my main hang-ups is how consistently the command to be baptized is prefaced with the command to repent. We have many examples throughout the New Testament of baptism being commanded, but we have no clear suggestions that baptism ought in any case to be performed before repentance has been displayed. I understand that the New Testament is largely missionary history, dealing with the spread of the gospel to unbelieving adults. However, the qualification that the command to repent before baptism ought to be abrogated with regards to children of believing adults would have had an appropriate audience in that context. Especially in the case of newly regenerated Gentiles, it would have been impossible to assume immediate knowledge that they would be expected to baptize their children when they themselves were baptized. So why do we never see any hint of an apostle saying, “Repent and be baptized, and have your children baptized with you.”?

   Yes, we are both saying that baptism is a sign. But if it is a sign of the death of the old nature and the regeneration of the Spirit, why would it be more appropriate to partake of the sign at any time other than the occasion of regeneration, as nearly as is humanly possible? This is not only a logical query, but a textual one as well: the apostles consistently seem to link the two temporally — repentance (the evidence of regeneration) should be expressed symbolically at the time of its actual occurence. What happened merely inwardly should be displayed outwardly through the symbol of formal covenant inclusion, as a testimony to the world that it did indeed happen inwardly.

   I definitely understand the intensity of your concern to be understanding the issue textually, with the baptism of your children impending. That same issue drove me as well to seek textual assurance. At the time I was so completely uncertain of my own convictions, that I could not even have said I was leaning in one direction or the other. I also understand your comment that the subject is difficult. If anyone’s expecting me to provide unasailable textual proofs of my position, I’m afraid he’ll be sadly disappointed. Hopefully,the forum will be at least a venue in which we can both consider things in a slightly different light as we seek the Spirit’s illumination and formulation of our beliefs through the diligent study of his word. Whatever the outcome, I am gratefully indebted to my Presbyterian brothers for the passionate defense of the truth in an age in which Arminianism and worse is rampant. I hope with regards to this particular issue we can agree to strive together as co-laborerers for Christ’s kingdom in spite of differences of opinion.

   Thank you for displaying a truly Christ-like attitude as we seek the doctrinal maturation of one another in his body.
6. fitzage says:

   November 13, 2005 at 12:50 am

   Pitchford,

   It has taken me some time to come to a point where I feel at least moderately qualified to respond to your article. I appreciate the fact that you are coming from a standpoint that recognizes the strength of Covenant Theology in the face of current Dispensational thinking. However, I think that your theology is still, to an extent, being influenced by these erroneous views (as has mine until recently).

   What I mean is this:

   I do not believe that the prophet Joel was prophesying a fundamental change in the way the covenant was administered, but was instead prophesying the restoration of the people of Israel to the way the law was always supposed to be written on their hearts. I believe this is what happened at Pentecost, and that the preaching at Pentecost was still primarily for the Jews.

   I believe that there is much evidence throughout the Old Testament that those who were truly regenerate had the law of God written on their hearts, and that the newness of the New Testament is not a fundamental change in this concept, but rather the addition of the Gentiles into it.

   Now I know that this is a lot to digest, but I believe that this is the core of why Dispensationalism is so drastically wrong, and that you cannot truly realize the danger of Dispensationalism until you understand this point.

   For starters, here are some verses from the Old Testament:

   Deuteronomy 30:10-14 Joshua 22:5 Psalm 40:8 Psalm 37:31 Isaiah 51:7 Psalm 40:8

   I don’t believe Paul’s indication in Romans that a Jew is one who is one inwardly is at all a radical departure from the way things were in the Old Testament. True regenerate Jews in the old testament had the law written on their hearts.

   Now I know that I have just opened up a huge can of worms. I have not proven what I have just said, nor have I proven or even touched on Infant Baptism. I do believe, however, that acceptance of the concept I have set forth here will lead one much closer to the acceptance of the validity of Infant Baptism.

   I will direct you to an article that develops this issue so fully (although certainly not perfectly) that I feel inadequate at this point to re-invent the wheel. The Internalization of the Law is Not New to the NT

   I hope that this is not seen as a cop-out. I wan the truth to be expressed fully, and I don’t feel capable of not getting in the way of that expression, so I direct you to someone who has done a fine job.
7. pitchford says:

   November 13, 2005 at 9:40 am

   I’m in the middle of my long weekend working, so I can’t respond fully right now. However, I’m not sure how you got the idea that I was saying that the internalization of the law is something new to the NT. I said explicitly that this was a reality in the OT, but only in the case of the regenerate remnant (yes, in continuity with Romans 2).

   Why does Jeremiah say, “Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers…[but] I will write my law on their hearts…”? I’m not saying law-internalization is an entirely new thing, but on the other hand Jeremiah’s statement must mean something. And why is it that only a proportionately small “remnant” of the visible covenant community was consistently seen as true Israel in the OT, whereas the true Israel in the NT seems to be proportionately much greater to the visible covenant community?

   I have to continue my schedule of twelve and ten hour days working for a few days longer, so I won’t be able to keep up with the conversation, but I’ll try to address these things more fittingly when I can.
8. pitchford says:

   November 13, 2005 at 9:46 am

   In substantiation of the preceding, allow me to reproduce this quotation from the original article:

   “Can it be that no Israelite in the Old Covenant had a heart upon which God had written his law, spiritual life, or a new nature that desired fellowship with Christ? A simple perusal of the Davidic psalms would suffice to make us certain that this could not be the case.”
9. fitzage says:

   November 13, 2005 at 7:55 pm

   I apologize for the misrepresentation. It had been some time since I read your article through, and I must admit that I only went back and re-read portions of it. I stand corrected.
10. pitchford says:

    November 17, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Apparently, we agree on the basic premise; however, I see that premise as supportive of a massive paradigm shift which comes to terms with itself most saliently on the point of credo-baptism. You see that same premise as issuing ultimately in the legitimacy of paedo-baptism. We might be helping each other, therefore, to start from the foundation we have in common, and to explain to each other our reasons for the dogma we build on that foundation. Let me attempt to do so first (in brief).

    It is a horrendously destructive tenet of Dispensationalism to deny all unity to the covenant of grace. I know we both strive to avoid that error; however, we should not let that negative reinforcement discourage us from doing justice to certain statements of the prophets and apostles that set the old covenant quite at odds with the new. Perhaps the clearest example of this is Hebrews 8:13, which tells us that, as soon as God had given prophecy of the new covenant, he established the old covenant as an imperfect and temporary covenant, a covenant that was never meant to be eternal. How can this, then, be a genuine administration of the covenant of grace, which is utterly indissoluble and eternal?

    We have the same sort of problem in one of our key texts (Jeremiah 31:31-34), a problem which is not exclusive to this prophecy, but which shows up over and over again in the prophetic writings: namely, those whom God recognizes as covenant children he utterly casts off, and gives clear testimony of them that they are not regenerate and that they will die in their sins. In this particular passage, God clearly indicates that he had entered into covenant with the fathers of the generation that he was addressing, and yet those with whom he had established his covenant had died without truly knowing him. How can this be consistent with the unilateral promise made to Abraham, “I will be your God, etc.”?

    However we may deal with these issues, we have to arrive at an understanding which retains the continuity of the covenant begun in Genesis 3:15, and renewed and refined throughout all of redemptive history. This one covenant is the only basis of our acceptance with God. The church of all history partakes indiscriminately of that covenant of grace.

    We must also recognize that this unifed covenant of grace is a monergistic, unilateral covenant. God takes upon himself every single covenant obligation, and vicariously merits every covenant blessing for all those who are members of his covenant.

    Furthermore, we must recognize that there was, in the Mosaic administration, a repetition of this one covenant, which was, as it always must be, sovereign and unilateral. Paul’s comments in Romans 10 clearly establish the fact that the pure gospel of God’s grace alone was spoken at the giving of the law on Sinai. In other words the covenant of grace was given expression anew at the commencement of the Mosaic administration.

    I have simply stated these premises without argumentation so far, because I assume we both agree on all these points. But this is where I think we might begin to differ.

    I believe we must also acknowledge that there was a covenant made at Sinai that was synergistic, a covenant that said, “If you do this you shall live.” I believe that even this covenant is not without continuity and eternal significance in God’s redemptive work, for it is basically a repetition of the covenant made in the garden with Adam – a covenant of works. When Adam failed in this covenant, he was immediately comforted with a purely gracious covenant promising a redeemer. But it was not the case that the covenant of works was simply discarded in favor of the new. God still demanded that his work be flawlessly kept. So the covenant of grace was really just the same covenant of works, with the added element of a vicarious work-fulfiller who would thereby merit the covenant blessings for those whom he represented. In other words, the covenant of grace always has had and always will have an organic connection with the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is for Christ a covenant of works, and for us a covenant of faith in our vicarious work-keeper/penalty-sufferer that the covenant of works demands.

    The Abrahamic covenant clearly displayed the unilateral covenant of grace sovereignly given to its children on the basis of the merits of Christ. So did the Mosaic covenant.

    However, the Mosaic covenant differed in this respect, that it proclaimed again the covenant of works, so that an Israelite could strive to keep the law through his own merit. In so striving, he would genuinely be under the covenant that was offered. But in so striving he must surely fail. The Mosaic covenant was unique in that it considered a certain class of people as members and partakers of it who were not members of the covenant of grace, which it also expressed. In other words, God considered ethnic Israelites before the New Covenant to be members of a real covenant he had made with them, even those who were not members of his covenant of grace. It was this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant that was ready to vanish away. Those Israelites who recognized that they were in God’s covenant of works — “Do this and live” — and also God’s covenant of grace — “Look to Christ to merit the life which you are incapable of” — were the truly regenerate, the church, in continuity both with Abraham and us. Non-ethnic-Jews-of-the-Mosaic-era who don’t believe in Christ are neither members of the covenant of grace, nor members of the covenant of works, which dissolved upon its forfeiture by Adam (or rather was rolled over to Christ). Ethnic Jews of the Mosaic era who did not believe are therefore unique in that they are genuinely members of God’s covenant of works, but not of his covenant of grace. God could call them to task on the basis of their breaking the covenant, and yet cast them off because the covenant was not the sovereign covenant made with Abraham (that was only for the believing remnant); the covenant was a covenant of works which they had broken.

    In light of these basic premises, my reasons for credo-baptism should start to become more clear. The Mosaic era of Israel is unique in all redemptive history, in that, there was a legitimate covenant fom God in which non-church members actually partook. This covenant would prove to be impossible to keep. God promised that he would make a new covenant, and that when he made it, there would no longer be anyone who was a member of his covenant who was not truly his child — Jeremiah 31 is definite enough to make this point emphatically. Not one member of the New Covenant would be unregenerate, whereas the majority of members in the Old Covenant were unregenerate. Only those who believed in Christ were actual partakers of the Covenant of Grace, in continuity with Abraham and us.

    Therefore, in this Old Covenant, people were brought in on the basis of something other than regeneration. All ethnic Israelites were truly members of the Old Covenant, some in its expression of grace, some in its expression of works. It was fitting that all Israelites, therefore, should be officially inaugurated into the Old Covenant.

    That has all changed. There is no longer an expression of the covenant of works for God’s people. All those who are brought into the New Covenant are regenerate. This is the dramatic change of Jeremiah 31. The visible but unregenerate church is no longer in covenant with God whatsoever. They are merely imposters.

    So it is fitting that the old Israelites should be incorporated into the covenant before giving evidence of regeneration, because that covenant was not necessarily the Covenant of Grace. It is no longer fitting, because all that is left is the actually accomplished promise, the perfectly fulfilled covenant of grace. It is no longer fitting to give formal recognition of covenant membership to one who has not displayed evidence of regeneration. Those who are not regenerate are simply not members of the New Covenant, as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., make clear. So why accept formally as members those whom we have no credible basis for believing God has called as members? God called infant Israelites to be members of the Old Covenant, but he prophesied a day in which he would give a new heart to everyone he would be in covenant with. Let’s wait for evidence of a new heart before we give the new covenant symbol.
11. fitzage says:

    November 18, 2005 at 7:16 am

    This is definitely not a full-on rebuttal of your comment, but I have some considerations.

    1. I understand your discussion of the Mosaic Covenant, but Paul ties us into the Abrahamic Covenant, which included children of believers. The Mosaic Covenant was not unique in this aspect.

    2. If there are no unregenerate people in the New Covenant, why do we constantly have warnings in the New Testament, in passages that are written specifically to the Church? How does Hebrews 10:26-29 work under your system? What about Hebrews 6:4-6?

    3. The days prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are not yet completed, either. The last days are still in progress. Is it not quite possible that this prophesy of Jeremiah refers instead to the conusmmation of the Kingdom?

    4. Jeremiah 31 itself even starts out emphasizing the relationship of families to God.
12. fitzage says:

    November 18, 2005 at 9:08 am

    I should probably clarify that what I was getting at with point 2 is that how can the New Covenant include blessing and cursing if it has only regenerate people in it?
13. pitchford says:

    November 18, 2005 at 9:55 pm

    Point one is well-taken. The real issue must be the fact that children were included in the Abrahamic Covenant, before Moses, without necessarily displaying evidence of regeneration. Some of these children would be such as Ishmael and Esau who were not salvifically accepted by God, and so there was a class of people who were formally inaugurated into the Abrahamic Covenant without actually partaking of its essence. When viewed concurrently with point three, the case for paedo-baptism becomes somewhat more tenable even with the understanding of the Mosaic Covenant passing away at the inauguration of the New Covenant. You definitely are causing me to think through everything again.

    Point Two, however, I do not see as relevant to the discussion. Any reformed theologian will tell you that those who fall away, sin wilfully after receiving knowledge of the truth, etc., are really giving evidence to the fact that they were never included in the New Covenant. They were mere imposters. Therefore, it is no blow to credo-baptistic thinking: in these cases the sign of the covenant was ministered in error, and, not being mingled with the faith of its subject, availed nothing at all. No credo-baptist will deny the possibility of human error in evaluating the proper subjects of baptism.

    Point four,as well, lends little support to your position. Yes, families are spoken of, but I think the point, if you compare this passage with the basic theology of the prophets in general, is that the new families of Israel will be those who are spiritually related in the true Israel that has Abraham for a spiritual father. Physical families are not thereby ruled out, but the mere fact of being physically sprung from any family that is ethnically Jewish is not the point of the passage (Cf. my article on Isaianic prophecies of eschatological Israel).

    As far as points one and three, anyway, you have me reconsidering. Tell me more. I’m struggling to fit everything together in a way that does not do damage to any scriptural premise, but it seems like every position I can come up with right now still has holes in it. I felt that way for years before finally coming to solidarity on the millennial issue — Poythress on II Thessalonians was quite helpful to me in that regard — so maybe there’s hope for me on this subject as well. Maybe my slow, dull mind will not finally hinder me from certainty on this point, but for that I will need much help.
14. pitchford says:

    November 19, 2005 at 12:17 am

    Actually, in light of Hebrews 8-10, I have to remain a little skeptical of point three as well. That prophecy and all that pertains to it was emphatically fulfilled by the death of Christ. These “last days” are days in which the blessings and realities of the New Covenant are fully operational. The thought that anyone could actually be included in the New Covenant without genuinely having God’s law written on his heart seems unthinkable, upon further reflection. Point one is still the crux of the issue.

    Also, the whole New Testament witness, e.g. Colossians 2, still needs to be brought under scrutiny. I know you have nothing but time on your hands, so it’s no problem for you to spend every waking hour formulating responses for my edification.

    Just kidding.
15. fitzage says:

    November 19, 2005 at 5:26 am

    I have a hard time seeing how the person in Hebrews 10:29 is merely an impostor.

    Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    And what about passages that say such things as “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.” (Hebrews 10:36)? Rather than seeming to be directed at impostors, this rather seems to be a warning to those in the covenant. Endure, or you will not receive the promise.

    In addition, I find it also interesting that the discussion in Hebrews 8-10 follows directly on the heels of the exposition of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, which brings us back to my first point. While this is a New Covenant in respect to it’s comparison to the Mosaic Covenant, it is not so new in respect to it’s relation to the Abrahamic Covenant, and the priesthood of Melchizedek.

    In regards to Colossians 2, Paul links spiritual circumcision with baptism. I don’t know that this helps or hurts either cause here. Baptism is a sign of circumcision of the heart. Does this really mean that circumcision of the heart must happen before baptism? Circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of circumcision of the heart as well, but it doesn’t follow that it had to come after the thing signified. I don’t see anything in Colossians 2 that requires that either.

    I second your thought that this is a complex subject, and that there seems to be holes in every position. I may sound very dogmatic on this, but it is definitely something I am still working through.

    My position on this can be summed up like this:

    Has God always included the children of Covenant saints in the Covenant until now? (Yes) Therefore, the evidence that he changed that must be pretty strong. It is an issue that, if I have a doubt as to which is the best answer, I will baptize my Children because that is side of caution on which it would be best to err.

    Maybe I do have too much time on my hands, but then I type 80 words a minute. Have to be careful not to let my fingers get ahead of my research.
16. nathan says:

    November 19, 2005 at 5:51 am

    80 words a minute? Yeah, and I’m Ghandi.

    What needs to be said is being said, from my perspective. Jeremiah 31 does indeed refer to the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic one of which we’re part and of which children are part. There are obvious differences between the “new” covenant and the Abrahamic, even, the most notable being the inclusion of Gentiles. Hence the term “new,” even though it in the most important ways mirrors the Abrahamic. So, as fitzage pointed out, where is the evidence that children are not to partake in the sign? It seems the burden of proof does indeed fall on the Baptists’ shoulders. What you’ve said, Pitchford, has caused me to re-evaluate my thinking on the Covenant, but thereby has only made my paedo-baptist leanings stronger.
17. pitchford says:

    November 19, 2005 at 10:31 am

    Let me deal with the peripheral issue first: are you questioning the reformed doctrine of perseverance? If so, that deserves its own post. Yes, warning passages are genuinely and appropriately applied to believers, but it will certainly spur them on to the final obtaining of the goal. God infallibly preserves and causes to persevere all those whom he has called, redeemed, justified, etc. Christ will not lose one of those whom God has given him. The imposter of Hebrews ten could not have genuinely known the elective, salvific grace of God, or he would not have fallen away and trodden under foot the blood of the Covenant. Yes, that involves a certain amount of linguistic idiom – one cannot understand “sanctified” in a woodenly literal sense, but rather must understand it in an apparent or self-claimant sense, but far better to do that than to fly in the face of Romans 8, not to mention the whole tenor of scriptures, and say that a person can actually be elect, and partake of the privileges of being redeemed and sanctified by Christ’s blood, and yet finally fall away. “Those whom he sanctified, them he also glorified.” “Faithful is he that called you, who also will do it.” And so on.

    But regarding the actual issue at hand: I also confess my tendency to let my typing (0.35 words a minute) get in front of my research, so I will refrain from commenting until I feel that I have something to add to the discussion. However, I do agree wholeheartedly with Nathan that the real heart of the issue is indeed being dealt with. We have to come to terms, above all, with the continuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants. Which I think has been the Reformed contention all along, but somehow I did a subconscious mental shift this whole time, rolling “Abrahamic” over to “Old” which I then equated with “Mosaic”. If I’m confusing you, just be thankful that you don’t have to live in my chaotic mind every day like I do.

    Anyway, thanks again for the constructive criticism. I continue to seek doctrinal solidarity, and I appreciate your valuable contributions towards that end.
18. pitchford says:

    November 19, 2005 at 10:35 pm

    I probably still have nothing valuable to say, but I would like to add a couple comments that may help clarify my perspective. They are written in regard to the presumed conclusion that the burden of proof must fall upon the Baptist’s shoulders. I can understand that thinking. I even accepted it for a time, but I am now questioning it more than ever. If the Baptist position denied the continuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants, then the burder of proof would be on his shoulders to demonstrate that premise. However, both positions admit the continuity of the covenants (I am speaking of Reformed Baptists here, not the modern Arminian/Dispensational variety). But the admission of continuity does not necessarily mandate the coincidence of accidents in the covenant signs. Does Baptism correspond to circumcision? Yes. Does it do so in a covenant which is in full continuity with the Abrahamic? Yes. Does that mean the accidental characteristics of the two should be the same in all facets? That is a blatant impossibility: baptism, whether by sprinkling, effusion, immersion, or water-skiing, differs quite clearly from circumcision in the accident of modality. If continuity of the covenant sign demanded full accidental similarity, why did Jesus not command his apostles to make disciples of the nations, circumcising them, etc.? In other words, I am saying it is not only plausible, but irrefutable that the covenants can be in continuity and the signs can be in continuity, without any necessary similarity of accidents. Why should coincidence of the accident of temporality be non-negotiable while the accident of modality is clearly non-similar? It seems to me that the burden of proof to demonstrate the necessity of temporal coincidence for legitimate covenant continuity ought to rest with the paedo-baptist. I say this with consideration to the New Testament, where we have recorded for us many commands to baptize/be baptized upon repentance, but without any clear commands to abrogate the necessity of repentance in favor of relatedness to repentant parents. Yes, that is an accidental characteristic of the symbolism of circumcision (although obviously not connected with the necessary conveying of grace to work faith in the infant, cf. Esau), but if that particular accident were a necessary part of baptism, which is indisputably accidentally different in some respects, why then at the institution of baptism do we have no indication that this is an appropriate or necessary accident?

    What you said about the fact that, if you had doubts you would err on the side of caution and baptize your children, caused me to think as well. I began to think, “Should I, as well, in lieu of absolute certainity, exercise this greater caution?” — but I was immediately vexed in my conscience with the thought that I would constantly be tormenting myself with wondering whether the baptism had been legitimate, not having been preceded by repentance. And so for me, with my “Let’s look at the information surrounding the actual institution of baptism” mindset, it would be the side of caution to wait until my child gave evidnece of repentance, to be sure the baptism was legitimate.

    Whenever I give thought to having my infant child baptized, I am vexed in my conscience. This could be a case of “weaker brother syndrome,” but I have had instances of that before and they have dissolved when I was convinced of a point from the scriptures. I have not yet been covinced from scriptures that the only New Testament information we have on the accidents of baptism should be supplemented by information derived from the continuity of the covenants. That is a plausible idea, but not a necessary one, especially given the fact that the accidents of the covenant signs indisputably change in some respects from one covenant to the other. I have come to an impasse in my own mind. God grant that I may someday speak with certainty on this point.
19. fitzage says:

    November 20, 2005 at 12:19 am

    I must try to allay your fears that I am abandoning the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. My point was not that these people referenced were elect who had fallen away, but that they were partakers of the covenant to some extent, but not elect. This of course would not fit with your interpretation that the New Covenant only includes believers, but I don’t see how you can then explain these verses.

    To jump back a bit, In regards to Peter quoting the prophesy of Joel, I used to think that this was used incorrectly by paedo-baptizers, but I’ve been rethinking my position on this. I don’t agree with you that this is referring to all classes of men. I believe it is, instead, referring to those Jews he was preaching to, their children, and all the Jews of the dispersion. I believe this is most likely the way Peter understood what he was saying, as well as those to whom he was speaking. This was before they had clear direction on the inclusion of gentiles. Whether or not this makes any difference in application, I’m not yet sure.

    I have, to this point, stayed away from the subject of household baptisms, but I do believe it gives at least some support to infant baptism. In most of these cases we are given no indication that anyone other than the head of the household believed. Does this require that there were infants in the households? No. Does this require that unbelieving family members were baptized? No. But does it strongly suggest that either of these possibilities could have been true? Yes. I guess what I’m saying here is that, while this is somewhat an argument from silence, it is a very weighty silence that is backed up by thousands of years of God’s Covenants with men.

    I know these are all things you’ve heard before, but I’m just trying to put down some of these thoughts swirling around in my head that are leading me to believe the weight of Covenant Theology supports, at the very least, an acceptability of Infant Baptism.

    I know you don’t view this next one as too great a support for Infant Baptism either, but a family is sanctified by the presence of one believing member. Does this mean baptism? Not necessarily, but it shows that there is still a Covenant link to the family.

    I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other, here, but it is nice to discuss this with someone who understands the importance of the Covenants. You have brought up many new things for me to consider, and helped me broaden my knowledge of the Covenants.

    I think that I will not henceforth feel the need to discuss these issues with a Dispensationalist because there’s no hermeneutical agreement to provide a basis for discussion.
20. Pitchford says:

    November 20, 2005 at 9:50 am

    “I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other…”

    Don’t say that yet — I still have hopes that we will, in this lifetime, take major steps towards growing up together to doctrinal maturity. The realization (which should have been obvious all along, but was for a long time hidden from my eyes), that the newness prophesied in Jeremiah 31 was a newness with respect to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic, covenant (as Galatians 3, etc. should have made clear) has caused me to do some massive rethinking. My pastor is gone to Costa Rica for a couple of weeks, and I want to talk to him before I finally settle on an opinion, but I have been reading everything I can find on Monergism, in systematics, and so on, both for and against both positions — and I am finally coming to terms with some things that I had not seen before. Please pray for God’s great grace and the enlightenment of the Spirit as I genuinely strive to reshape my thinking into that which is biblical and nothing else.

    Explain to me in greater detail what reasons you have for believing that there are curses and blessings of the New Covenant — that is, that a person can be genuinely incorporated into the New Covenant without being elect. Are there New Covenant Ishmaels, in other words.

    By the way, thanks for the clarification on perseverance. If your contention is correct it would carry a great deal of weight.
21. fitzage says:

    November 21, 2005 at 5:27 am

    I don’t know about New Testament Ishmaels, but there can be New Testament Esaus. Take this passage from Hebrews 12:

    Hebrews 12:12-17   Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

    And a little farther down:

    Hebrews 12:25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.

    As near as I can tell, these words are written to members of the church. We would say Christians, but there is obviously the possibility of some of these people being unregenerate. More important, however, is Romans 11:

    Romans 11:17-24 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

    The most telling part here is “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.” These are people who were grafted into the Abrahamic Covenant, but who run the risk of being cut off. We see more of the same in Hebrews 4:

    Hebrews 4:1-11 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

    “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”

    although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

    “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
    For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

    This theme was mainly brought to my attention by some sermons by John Piper (a Baptist, as you know). The text of a couple of those sermons can be found here and here. Now what Piper doesn’t do is delve into the Covenantal links here.

    What I see from all this is that there are people who are partakers on some level with the people of God, even going so far as to be grafted into the Olive Tree of the Abrahamic Covenant and the people of Israel, but who ultimately fall away and are cut off. There are very strong warnings about fearing unbelief.

    On a side note, this is why children who are taught the whole council of God do not run the great risk that we are often told children baptized as infants run: thinking they are saved when they are not. If they are faithfully taught the doctrines of grace, this risk is eliminated. It is when Parents and churches shirk these responsibilities that this risk occurs.

    This is probably not a conclusive list of these types of passages, but these are the most significant, especially the Romans passage. I lack the word-slinging skill of you, Pitchford, but I hope that you can make sense of my ramblings.
22. Pitchford says:

    November 21, 2005 at 8:01 am

    How can I deny that? I feel the clutches of an inexorable syllogism precluding my every avenue of escape: that is,

    1. Children of believers are included in the New Covenant (cf. Luke 18, I Corinthians 7:14, Acts 2, and especially Galatians 3 in light of Genesis 17);

    2. God commands that those who experience the covenant blessings/are included in the covenant be given the covenant sign (cf. Genesis 17 and Acts 10);

    3. The covenant sign is baptism (cf. Colossians 2)

    Therefore, God commands that baptism be given to the children of believers. If one should say, “But baptism is a sign of faith, and infants cannot exercise faith” — then it must be noted that circumcision was a sign of faith (as Romans 4 makes abundantly clear) and infants cannot exercise faith — yet God commanded that infants be circumcised. And so it is with every argument I have formulated in defense of credo-baptism. I can find scriptural bases for rejecting it. But I cannot find scriptural bases for rejecting the syllogism I have just enunciated.

    As I said, I wish to talk to my pastor when he returns from Costa Rica, and see if perhaps he is aware of some blind spot in my reasoning. But right now I can see none.
23. fitzage says:

    November 21, 2005 at 9:17 am

    Did I ever mention that “inexorable” is one of my favorite words? Especially when combined adroitly with “vicissitudes”.

    I must say that this has been a very helpful discussion in helping me better understand the Covenants. It has been very helpful that you (even if you eventually come around to a paedo-baptist view) have approached this from a Covenant standpoint. In most things I have read from both sides on the subject, the arguments are lacking. I think this discussion has been much more meaningful and brought to light a broad range of passages that are often not considered.

    Even though I came to a paedo-baptist position some time ago, most of the articles I have read on the subject have been sorely lacking in substance, tending instead to skip across the surface of the issue like a stone. Your article and comments have helped me personally to come to a better understanding of what I believe and why I believe it.

    As always, I appreciate your commitment to Scripture, and hold you as a dear brother in Christ, whether you remain a Baptist or not.
24. nathan says:

    November 21, 2005 at 9:24 pm

    Wow.
25. Rott says:

    November 23, 2005 at 12:04 am

    Being aquainted with Pitchford and having been influenced heavily by his teachings and by reading all of these comments I pose a question to all of you. If scripture speaks often of belivers baptism and little to none on infant baptism at what point does one read too much into sripture? Also could you explain again in a short answer what the benefits or blessings would be to infant baptism? Thank you for your time.
26. pitchford says:

    November 23, 2005 at 7:18 am

    Mike,

    That’s a good question: obviously, if we’re actually reading things into the scripture at all, that can be dangerous. Hopefully, no matter where we stand on the issue, we’re doing our best to empty our minds of preconceived notions so that the scriptures alone are forming our opinions. In other words, although no one does this perfectly, we should avoid reading into the scriptures anything at all.

    But that’s a little different from saying we should never come to embrace a truth from scriptures unless we have one or more texts which, in themselves, clearly teach that truth. It is a necessary part of bible study to compare scripture with scripture: to say, “Because this verse says one thing (a) and this verse says another thing (b) I can arrive at a biblical teaching (c) which no one verse explicitly says. For example, there are verses that say that adultery is a sin (a); and there are verses where Jesus says that if a man lusts after a woman, he has commited adultery with her in his heart (b); conflating the two, we can arrive at the scripturally certain truth, to lust after a woman is a sin (c), even if we can find no clear passages that say this explicitly. Coming to an understanding that conflates scriptures in this manner is an indispensable part of theology: it is where we get the orthodox formulation of the Trinity, how we arrive at the permissibility of women partaking in the Lord’s Supper, and so on. Just because we have no clear NT examples of women partaking of the Lord’s supper does not mean that this practice is illegitimate. Just because we have no verse saying there is one God who eternally exists in three persons does not mean that this is untrue. So the question is, “Do we have legitimate reasons to compare scripture with scripture and arrive at infant baptism, in spite of the absence of clear NT examples?” Initially, I was thinking, “No.” However, this dialogue is starting to convince me of some biblical truths that, when conflated, do indeed lead to that practice (for those truths, see my last comment).

    As far as the other question, “What [are] the benefits or blessings…to infant baptism?”. we certainly would agree that no saving grace is conferred upon the child by the baptism. The main reason for doing it would be that God commands that the members of the covenant be given the sign of the covenant, but not to try to merit favor, necessitate salvation, or anything like that.

    The basic Reformed teaching is that the ordinances (sacraments) of the covenant (baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament) are signs and seals of God’s covenant grace. When God promises covenant blessings, he is pleased to give us a picture of what those blessings are, something tangible that we can look to and “see” covenant realities that cannot actually be seen. Hence they are a sign. They are also a seal; they are like God putting his authentic signature on the promises he has given us, confirming them indisputably. For example, God promised he would not destroy the earth with a flood, then, to confirm his word he gave us the sign of that promise in the rainbow. Every time we see a rainbow in the sky, we can assure ourselves that God has inviolably sealed this blessing as ours. The rainbow, and also baptism and the Lord’s supper, are like the signatures on the check of covenant blessings God has given to us. Therefore, they serve to build up and confirm our faith. When these covenant signs are not met with true faith, they do not convey covenant blessings by themselves — many baptized men will go to hell — but for true believers, their faith is made more sure and they are enabled to persevere when they remember that they have indeed partaken of the covenant realities, when they experience the covenant signs, God’s inviolable seals of grace to them.

    I hope this explains a little more fully some of the “understood elements” of our discussion — things we hadn’t brought up because both parties were assuming the same basic point of view on the parts of one another. Thanks for your comments and questions. If you have anymore questions, or if the Spirit brings anything to your mind from scriptures that we have not yet considered, please continue the dialogue.

    Love in our Savior, Nathan
27. Bob Hayton says:

    December 2, 2005 at 1:05 am

    I very much appreciated the tenor of this discussion. Very open, frank, honest, and above all charitable. I get the sense that you all have not 100% arrived at your respective positions. I must admit that I have really just begun researching this aspect of my heretofore largely assumed faith. For one picking up the discussion, this is a great place to encounter reasoned Biblically-informed arguments from both positions. I remain unconvinced of paedo-baptism for some reasons I hope to lay out here in brief. I may add more later, as I want to post something before any final decisions are made for any and all concerned.

    Before reading on to read my comments I insist that you read the following succinct article that I believe captures the heart of the previous discussion and concludes on the credo-baptist side (I confess I am unashamedly following Matt Fitzsimmons’ lead in letting others–more qualified than I –present the case so that it may be presented in the most convincing and articulate way).

    Some other points I would like to briefly bring up:

    1) You (Nathan) use Gen. 17 to add light to Gal. 3 to prove that children are included in the New Covenant, as they were in the old (positing that a class of recipients of the new covenant receive real blessings in the new covenant but are not full partakers thereof). However, what about the fact that Ishamael is expressly excluded from the spiritual blessings of the old covenant in Gen. 17:21 before the first actual circumcisions (of Ishamael also) were performed in vs. 23. Also, Gen. 25:23 in this light has God informing Rebeccah (& Isaac) that one of the sons would not be included in the spiritual provisions of the covenant. Both of these passages are expressly used by Paul in Rom. 9:7-13 to say that there is a personal election relating to faith within the coorporate election relating to external blessings and identification with the covenant people.

    2) Further, note that the Abrahamic covenant is expressly defined in the New Testament. Those who are included in the Abrahamic covenant today (“sons of Abraham”) are expressly said to be those who are “of faith” (Gal. 3:7). Rom. 9:8 makes a distinction between the “children of (Abraham’s) flesh” and the “children of the promise”. Now since the covenants clearly have continuity this verse can be seen as defining a reality that has existed since the provision of the Abrahamic covenant (and it is expressly presented as such with the quotes from Gen. and Malachi to prove the present reality under the New Covenant–the era in which Paul penned Romans). This seems to argue against the simplistic view of all old covenant members including unbeleiving children receiving the sign of the old covenant is equal to all new covenant members including children receiving the sign of the new covenant when it is expressly stated that the new covenant corresponds only to part of the participants of the old covenant. From Rom. 9 there are two types of participants in the old covenant, those of flesh, and those of promise/ie. faith. But Rom. 4 (and Gal. 3 and others) expressly state that the new covenant members/those included in Abraham’s covenant are the children of faith/those of faith.

    3) Further, notice that Gal. 3:22 concludes with “so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe“! Not to those who believe and their children who presumably will believe sooner or later. Also, I may be wrong but I see an interesting connection between Gal. 3:26 and 27. V. 26 states “you are sons of God through faith…” and v. 27 elaborates, “for all of you who were baptized…have clothed yourselves with Christ”. I see this clearly intimating that faith precedes baptism. Also it is saying something like this: “you all are new covenant members/saved by faith. This is made clear in that each one of you who has been baptized has become part of Christ’s body/identified with Christ as a full heir (the Greek ceremony of being robed when one became a full heir–placed as a son/adopted). But those of you I am writing to who have not yet been baptized have not yet put on Christ.” This is made clear further by the term “all of you” or “every one” so their are no baptized ones who have not fully owned Christ/fully become a partaker of Christ, because all who are baptized are claiming to be fully a partaker of Christ, not merely the adult converts.

    4) Also, is not their a difference in the nature of circumcision and the nature of baptism? Circumcision is more presented as something parents do to children, but baptism is never expressly stated as such a rite. Rather baptism is expressly limited to people who profess faith (Acts 8:37 if you admit the TR to be correct there) and Acts 2 and the order in Matt. 28 among other places. Never is circumcision so expressly limited to those who have faith at the time of the act, but rather is specifically limited to those who want merely to identify with the laws and national identity of Israel. Also, baptism is expressly unpacked as far as its spiritual significance. However, often circumcision is contrasted with spiritual circumcision. The act does have symbolic significance but much practical and external significance for the old covenant, but what practical and external significance is there expressly stated for baptism in the new covenant? Also there are passages which come so far as to almost seem to say too much for baptism in identifying it with what it symbolizes. Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:20-21, and others could be given which have caused many a Church of Christ convert to be confused as to the symbolic nature of baptism. Such emphatic statements are not to be found concerning circumcision.

    Just a few more points and I close.

    5) I wanted to briefly comment on the household baptisms, since Matt had brought that up. It is expressly stated that all of Cornelius’ household received the gift of the Spirit signified by tongues prior to baptism. The Phillippian jailor and his household heard the word preached (Acts 16:32) and rejoiced upon conversion (v. 34). The household of Stephanus were labeled the “first converts” (1 Cor. 16:15), and had “dedicated” or “addicted” themselves to ministry (1 Cor. 16:15). These considerations seem to add further weight to the Baptist view of these passages. Also, Lydia is presented as a merchant, and in her culture a married woman would rarely be one. It could be assumed she was unmarried and as is the norm, childless (at least with no infants) and that household refers to her servants. But with the 3 other household conversion testimonies seen to be presented as being composed of people who heard the word, rejoiced, and had evidence of the spirit, converted, and addicted themselves to ministry, this one non-explicit (or rather not so explicit) example could be interpreted by the other examples. Granted this would be an argument from example not from precept and has much less weight, however as Matt has alluded earlier, many paedo-baptists find great comfort in these examples hoping to find Biblical warrant for their beliefs, perhaps.

    6) We must also keep in mind as has been mentioned before the clear statements of the New Testament (which most explicitly lays out what the new covenant looks like) on the connection of faith and baptism. Col. 2:12 seems so abundantly clear: “buried…in baptism, in which you were…raised up…through faith in the working of God”. 1 Pet. 3:21 seems to affirm that baptism saves in its being an “appeal to God for a good conscience”/ie. an act of faith as one of the means whereby God completes the salvation of His elect. Also the clear statements in Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. Also if joining the covenant community thru baptism is so all important, and making sure believer’s children are, why does Paul make a point that he came to preach the gospel and not baptize in 1 Cor. 1:17?

    7) Concerning your unassailable syllogims… (tongue in cheek of course!) Luke 18:17 expressly states that anyone who is to participate in the kingdom must receive it like children receive the kingdom! Acts 2 states what happened, “those who had received his word were baptized”. Also the promise in v. 39 is limited by the phrase “as many as the Lord our God will call”. V. 42 further seems to say all baptized continued in all the visible aspects of church life. Also, in the article I linked to above, the guy makes a very strong point concerning 1 Cor. 7:14. If the unbelieving children are claimed as covenant participants thru the word “holy”, then the unbelieving spouse should be a covenant participant too, thru the word “sanctified” (same word in Greek used as a verb instead of an adjective). Again baptism and church membership are not expressly present in this text. Left with Gal. 3 tied to Gen. 17 and in light of my previous arguments in point 1 above, I think the support for you first point of the syllogism is scanty. I understand the weight of your counter-argument concerning faith with the sign. However, faith is never explicitly required in the provisions of the ordinance of circumcision, whereas faith is explicitly required in the provisions for the ordinance of baptism.

    You must deal with the fact brought up by the article I link to at the top, that adult sons and servants are required to participate in the old covenant sign, but clearly not required to participate under the new covenant. Why is it that only infant sons are to be baptized under the new covenant. If servants and adult sons of older adult converts are now not required to partake of baptism, than there is a big discontinuity in the administration/accidence of the signs. Onesimus would be a clear example of a household where a believing master did not see his slave as a partaker of the covenant and thus almost assuredly did not have him baptized. The commands to Masters never state treat your servant as a covenant memeber and make sure he is baptized!

    9) As for warning passages… Some commentators do see the Hebrews warning passages as warnings to covenant participants who are not necessarily converted. However, there are very able arguments put forth for at least three other positions which do not necessitate this view. One is that the warnings in Hebrews particularly relate with a situation where members of the old covenant were meeting with those of the new covenant but had not yet thrown off all the ceremonies of the old covenant and had their hope in it. This would be a historically singular point in time which ended when the temple was destroyed, at which time the ease with which Jews could intermingle with Christians and still maintain Jewish worship would be removed. (Could this not account for the fact that James was concerned that some who were in some sense a part of the Jerusalem church would want to have Paul killed, when Paul came to Jerusalem for the last time.) I know this argument seems very close to the argument Matt posits concerning this referring to covenant participants who are not yet regenerate. But there are some other views as well. One is that the warnings are hypothetical and are used as means of grace to help true believers persevere. Another similar argument, is that these are real warnings (of the nature of the warnings Peter gives in his epistles, and Paul gives abundantly in his epistles, about the need to not make shipwreck of faith, not become a castaway, not forsake the faith, etc.) used by the Spirit to sustain endurance in the elect but used as stumblingblocks to seal the fate of those not regenerate, but who are the tares grown up with the wheat. I do not see this argument as necessitating a view that these people experienced benfits of the covenant directly. This is just the reality which will remain until the full fulfillment of Jer. 31 when all of those claiming to be God’s people will be genuinely regenerated. But this reality is in sharp contrast to the old covenant reality of the majority of the covenant community being clearly non-regenerate.

    Here are a couple of thoughts that I have not thought through completely.

    10) First, what is the significance of Paul’s argument in Rom. 4:9-12 in relation to the paedo-baptistic assertion that all new covenant members are taking the sign of baptism to directly correlate with Abraham’s sign of circumcision.

    11) Second, why is it that circumcision is never expressly abrogated? Acts 21:20b thru 22 teaches that many Jews beleived and yet kept the law to such an extent that if Paul had taught Jews to stop circumcizing (as these people thought he did) that they would be outraged. James does not mention that this outrage would be unjust, but seems to imply that he did not think that Paul had so taught. This is after Galatians was written by any conservative account. Gal. 5:2-6 is directed to Gentiles but seems to imply that circumcision is null and void for all after Christ’s death. What is interesting in this is that Acts 21 is possibly 30 years removed from Pentecost, and yet still many Jews are insisting on maintaining both covenant signs! If new testament infant baptism so naturally flows from old covenant infant circumcision, why does such a large factor of believers insist on partaking of both signs for 30 years or more after the proclamation of the apostle’s gospel??? If it be further argued, that Hebrews’ arguments concerning the putting away of the old covenant for the new and “better” covenant of Christ would be seen as to imply that circumcision too should be done away, then that puts us back to argueing that circumcision should be seen as part of the old covenant particularly, or to say it the other way, the old covenant is seen to include the external elements of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic covenant. Col. 3:11 is dogmatic, national distinctions do not matter now, we are one in Christ. That would seem to argue that the spiritual reality always in some sense embodied by the Messianic and spiritual promises included in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants is the primary correlation to the new covenant, and that the new covenant should not be seen as having a defined and clear external element to it as the old Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants did.

    I believe I have gone on long enough. Sorry to tax the ears (or eyes!) of you who have already thought through most of this. But for me, this seems like many reasons not to abandon credo-baptism for paedo-baptism. I do want to be open to having God lead me to accept the truth, no matter what it is. I do welcome any clarifying questions or premise-shattering arguments. Thanks.
28. fitzage says:

    December 2, 2005 at 5:29 am

    I must say that I am not yet ready to respond to all your arguments, but I have a couple of points at the moment.

    1. What is the olive tree that we are grafted into and can be broken out of if it is not covenant relationship with God? This is not a hypothetical situation. The tares in the wheat analogy cannot apply here, and we know that true believers cannot lose their salvation. What else can this passage mean than that there are covenant partakers who are not regenerate?

    2. You seem to focus a lot on the fact that infant baptism is never explicitly commanded, but this is not really the issue here.

    Another tidbit I thought of is, how do you substantiate this claim: “You must deal with the fact brought up by the article I link to at the top, that adult sons and servants are required to participate in the old covenant sign, but clearly not required to participate under the new covenant.” I don’t see why these people would not be included in the New Testament provisions of baptizing the household. It may not be common practice, but where are they ever excluded?
29. fitzage says:

    December 2, 2005 at 5:35 am

    I also find the opening paragraph of the article you linked to quite telling:

    No Baptist begins to seek an answer to the question “Who should be baptized?” by studying the Bible’s doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal directly with the term “baptize.” In a later study of Covenant Theology, he finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.

    This is precisely where Dispensationalists and most Baptists have gone wrong. I commend Pitchford for his commitment to searching the whole of Scripture. Mr. Chantry has admitted that he is taking notions from the New Testament and basing his beliefs strictly on that, and then reading into Covenant Theology support for his claims. This is a rather backwards hermeneutic.
30. pitchford says:

    December 2, 2005 at 5:40 am

    Thanks for joining the discussion, Bob. If I had three spare lifetimes and several oceans of ink, I would undertake to engage in a point by point discussion of your brief comment (I had to throw that in, because you’re the first person I’ve come across as verbose as myself); but as it is, I’ll just touch on a few of what I still consider to be the main issues at hand.

    1. I did not use Galatians 3 to indicate that children were members of the New Covenant, but that New Testament believers are members of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yes, it is true that only those who have genuine faith own the essential realities of the new dispensation of the Abrahamic Covenant. But likewise in the old dispensation, only those who had genuine faith partook of essential covenant realities. That did not, however, exclude them from being given the covenant signs, which would later serve as the basis for their condemnation – in fact (as you also pointed out), such non-regenerate personas as Ishmael were commanded to be given the covenant sign. Therefore, the point is, if it was not inappropriate for certain unregenerate persons to be included in a formal sense in the covenant that unilaterally promised God’s blessing and presence under the old dispensation, then it is not out of hand unthinkable for certain unregenerate persons to be formally included in the new dispensation of that same unilateral covenant. More to the point: the old dispensation clearly said that only regenerate persons were included, e.g. when God said without qualification, I will establish my covenant…for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you, and to your seed after you” (Genesis 17:7). However, immediately after that statement which clearly qualified only the regenerate as members of the covenant, God commands that Ishmael, who would not be included in the previous unilateral statement, be given the sign of this unilateral covenant (Genesis 17:10,11). Therefore, in the new dispensation, exlicit statements that those in the covenant will have their sins forgiven, or that they do believe, etc., do not necessarily rule out the legitimacy of those who do not have those essential covenant realities partking of the sign of the covenant blessings. It would be quite consistent with God’s prior covenant dealings, even in an earlier administration of the very same covenant, to subsume only the regenerate as partakers of the covenant blessings and at the same time command that those who are not partakers of the essential covenant blessings be given the sign of those blessings that they will never truly have.

    2. The point in Romans 4:9-12 is similar. There, Paul clearly says that circumcision (the sign of the old administration of the covenant, see Genesis 17:10,11) was a sign and seal of Abraham’s faith. And yet God commanded it to be given to infants. Therefore, no New Testament passage that says that baptism is an expression or sign of faith (Colossians 2, I Peter 3, etc.) can ipso facto rule out the legitimacy of baptism being given to infants. Circumcision was an expression of faith, and yet it was appropriately given to infants.

    The previous has just been to discount your positive arguments for credo-baptism, and not to add anything positive to the argument for paedo-baptism. A positive argument would still have to be construed along the lines of my previous syllogism. Let me add some clarifications to that.

    1. Luke 18:16,17 does not say that infants were baptized. That is not the point. The point is, that it includes infants of those who believe in Jesus in the set of those who can be said formally (whether or not actually is beside the point) to possess the realities that only those in the New Covenant possess. Any survey of the concept of possessing the kingdom of heaven in the gospels would lead one to the position that such a possession presupposes the new birth (John 3), the forgiveness of sins, the meekness evidencing a new heart, the status as members of the new covenant(cf. also Matthew 5:3,10). In other words, Luke 18 emphatically necessitates that a certain set of infant children of believing parents were indeed new covenant members, i.e. those to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven. Adults who were presently excluded could indeed become members of the same by being given a nature that credulously accepts the realities of the New Covenant as those children who were raised up in its teaching credulously accept them from their childhood. This does not necessitate the regeneration of every New Covenant infant, but at least it establishes a class of infants who are members in the New Covenant, and who may be expected by God’s grace to grow up with a heart of true faith. Anyone else who would join the ranks of the New Covenant people would have to experience a change of heart so that he could be said to hare in common with these infants the trait of credulous acceptance of kingdom truths.

    A few more random observations:

    1. Chantry’s position on I Corinthians 7 seemed untenable to me; if Paul was simply saying that children of mixed marriages were not bastards, one would have to assert with equal certainty that, in the case of desertion by the unbelieving spouse, the children would become bastards. The reference to the unbelieving spouse being sanctified does not necessitate a view that he/she is thereby included in the New Covenant, but simply that he/she is sanctified with respect to the status of the children. I think you will find that this is the major issue being dealt with. In other words, the presence of a believing spouse sanctifies the marriage union itself so that the children are considered holy covenant children.

    2. You say that circumcision is never expressly abrogated: however, circumcision as a sign of the covenant is indeed abrogated. If one wants to be circumcised today for hygenic reasons, to avoid offense in a foreign country, etc., fine. But as soon as he starts to see circumcision as incorporating him into the covenant of grace, we must say with Paul, “If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Galatians 5:2).

    3. In dealing with the warning passages, you left untouched the passage that seemed the most clear and irrefutable to me: Romans 11.

    In conclusion, I don’t see how you have dealt sufficiently with the syllogism I am still grappling with. Children of believing parents are said to be possessors of realities that are to be found only in the New Covenant (e.g. the kingdom of heaven); God commands that those who possess realities that come only in the New Covenant be given the sign of the New Covenant (e.g., Peter’s statement (paraphrased), Because they have received the Holy Spirit (Who comes only within the New Covenant) it is an impossibility to deny them the sign of the New Covenant, i.e. baptism. (Acts 10:47). And Colossians 2 makes manifest that baptism is indeed the sign of the New Covenant.

    As you suggested, I am still not ready to commit myself with 100% certainty to the paedo-baptist view; however, I do not feel that the import of the previously mentioned syllogism has been sufficiently dealt with to deny its legitimacy. Further interaction would still be welcome. Thanks again for your thoughts.

    Nathan
31. Ryan says:

    January 2, 2006 at 8:29 am

    Nathan, don’t go over to the dark side . . .

    Have any of you covenant men read Jewitt’s book yet?
32. pitchford says:

    January 3, 2006 at 12:39 am

    I must confess that I have not read Jewitt’s book. In fact (although I fear the admission may reveal my true status as an un-seminaried intellectual low-life), I am not even sure to which book precisely you are referring.

    I do need to inform you that your comment arrives late by several weeks. The discussion has been continued under a more recent post, Credo-Baptism: A Retraction. If you wish to follow the ongoing dialogue, you may do so there.

    If you have any discussion related directly to the covenant/dispensational issue, and not merely to the issue as it comes to bear on the question of baptism, several other posts would be more aptly accomodating (e.g. Dispensationalism Archive).

    Nathan
33. Ryan says:

    January 3, 2006 at 8:39 am

    Well, a curt response. You misunderstand me completely. I have no interest in taking up a covenant/dispensational debate here. My post was only a month late, and I hardly expected the quick turn around I find on the retraction! Jewitt’s book is from a covenant perspective defending the credo-baptist position. I had mentioned it to Nathan a couple years ago. The book is written by a respected evangelical (though evangelical left) scholar and makes a firm case for believer’s baptism from the perspective of covenant theology.

    I am not sure how to take your remark about being a non-seminarian intellectual low-life. I am getting the feeling, though, that I am being given a bit of a cold welcome. Perhaps I am misreading you. I will at this point hope so.
34. nathan says:

    January 3, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Ryan, I must interject that it seems you took offense to what seemed to be a humble response by Pitchford (that said, I know he will apologize to you promptly if he caused offense). If you read the post he references and subsequent comments, I, too, believe you’ll understand even more of the debate that is going on between we humble intellectual (or, non-) low-lifes. I believe everyone involved is coming at it from a Covenant perspective, and many of us have been burnt by books and teachers that claim a “new take” on theological issues. The format of the blog (if I may boldly speak for all), is less of “this is what a book somebody told me to read says” and more of “this is what we’re finding the Bible alone to say.” My morbid curiousity alone makes me interested in the book you mention, but I for one would rather not leave my chair to go to a library or bookstore when I have a nice NASB (don’t worry, and a KJV) right here.

    I read your first negative Star Wars reference and wasn’t sure of your intention with it, so I didn’t reply until you clarified more in your second comment. Please try to keep it real and don’t take offense where none exists.

    I understand my words have been much more curt than Pitchford’s and may cause offense. Please consider this more “sharpening iron” then criticism and also realize that most of the commenters on here are much less curt than I.

    Somewhat related to this, please read the recent post When Will All The Fighting End?.
35. Ryan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 12:26 am

    Nathan F, I would hope that from our past interaction you know me better than that. I skimmed his fighting post, and found it ironic in light of what I perceived to be sarcasm. If it was, that is fine. I am good to go.

    I would commend to all of you that you can neither approach the Bible as objectively as you purport, but, even if you could, I would hope that would interact with those who have gone through these issues before you. Those who have gone before us in the Church of Jesus Christ are not authoritative in telling us what the Scripture says, but certainly helpful in interpreting it, even if you completely disagree with them.

    If you ordered the book on-line (with the helpful link I supplied!), you would (feasibly) not have to leave your chair.

    Anyway, if Nathan P meant nothing by it, then no harm done here. I will try to “keep it real” (whatever that means).
36. pitchford says:

    January 4, 2006 at 6:38 am

    Ryan,

    I certainly want to affirm that I intended no offense at all. I can see in retrospect that my labeling myself “an un-seminaried intellectual low-life” could have been perceived as a sarcastic attack on seminary students, but I want to assure you that I did not intend it in that way at all. I have nothing but respect for the intense and serious searching of scriptures that is undertaken in such milieus, and I think we should all learn from that example, and be more careful and ardent students of the bible regardless of where we are at. I would be interested in hearing what Jewitt has to say (some of the most influential teachers I’ve had have been on paper alone, so I’m not trying to negate the legitimacy of studying the writings of godly scholars in this generation and generations past), hence the confession of my ignorance of the book you recommend. It was simply an awkward groping after further information. (Thanks for the link to the book in your later comment — I’ll try to peruse it in my spare time.)

    As far as the rest — please accept my apology and understand that I was only trying to offer helpful information (however inaptly it came across). I thought you may like to know that the same conversation had been carried on for a few weeks longer, therefore the update on my newer post; and I thought you may be interested in the underlying hermeneutical debate because of your addressal, “you covenant men,” by which I inferred that you were including us in a group sharing an interpretive grid foundational to the eventual outcome of the baptism issue, and at the same time excluding yourself. The misunderstanding is no doubt due to my tendency to assume too much information from a simple comment, and respond to that perceived information without taking time to elaborate my reasons for doing so (as well as a faulty assumption of the nature of the Jewitt book, I might add).

    At any rate, I am truly thankful for the helpful pointer to a book of which I had been ignorant, and I would welcome any further discussion on this post or any other. I appreciate your pursuit and dissemination of the knowledge of Christ, and pray that our Father will bless you richly in that end.

    With love in our Savior, Nathan
37. Ryan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 6:43 am

    And please accept my apologies for reading so much into your comment. I guess I shouldn’t have skipped a day of my medication.
38. pitchford says:

    January 4, 2006 at 7:04 am

    No problem. I just happen to have a gift card to Barnes and Noble, so I think I’ll use it to pick up Jewett’s book. The brief excerpt was tantalizing.
39. Ryan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 7:48 am

    He is very convincing. And not one shred of dispensationalism (and most baptists, of course, have historically leaned towards covenant and Reformed theology and Calvinism)–at least before the 20C.
40. nathan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 8:22 am

    As for me, Ryan, I’m sure you understand from knowing me that my “we don’t need other books ’cause we have the Bible” comment was slightly tongue in cheek — but only slightly. I’m finding more and more that the “experts” are out to prove something, which is usually the reason they publish a book (also, how “convincing” would the book have to be to strengthen your already unwavering credo- stand?). It’s been refreshing for me to discover the world of blogging (this site and others) and to have honest discussion about passages and issues in an obviously biased environment. The difference is that instead of being inundated with one side for 400 pages, I see instant feedback from both sides. I like Pitchford’s site because he seems to have readers that consistently remain loyal to an objective interpretation of Scripture and have even been willing to admit when they’re wrong or at least when they can’t dogmatically prove their side.

    I think you’re right that we can’t be purely objective in our study, but I find it curious that I originally started studying infant baptism to disprove it. My previous study had led me to a Covenant position, yet Baptist practice was so ingrained in me that I felt I loyally needed to defend it. Imagine my surprise to realize credo-baptism is pretty indefensible from a Covenant position. I have heard seemingly good arguments from credo-covenant Baptists (Bob Hayton, for example), but have discovered major holes upon closer examination.

    I am not opposed to reading the book you mentioned. In fact, I’m going to order it right now so I can discover your position. My concern was with the [perceivedly] flippant way you scanned the first (and not as thorough, I might add) half of an important discussion and could only come up with a condescending comment and link to a book. I followed an unrelated discussion on another blog recently that spanned 20 pages of comments. There were many commenters on there that seemed to have read a couple comments here and there and hadn’t even read the original post, yet thought themselves qualified to jump in and “save the day.” I believe this is not the case with you, but it seemed that way at first perusal.

    I hope I have not offended and wish that such topics wouldn’t divide Christians and friends like they tend to. As I mentioned in the Fighting comments, paedo-baptism shouldn’t be a dividing issue, but for those of us related to or affiliated with Baptists, it gets more attention than it should. Alas.
41. Ryan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 9:20 am

    It seems you are upset. In fact, I did not read the entire post. Perhaps this is immoral or rude, but I do not necessarily believe so. Neither was I trying to save any day. I merely wondered if you had yet read the book I recommended to you several years ago. It was light, stated in a light fashion, and not debating anything. I would dare say that Jewitt is not my position, nor did he convince of anything, but, I believe, brought out good points from a covenant perspective. Of course, paedo-baptism should be a dividing issue, though you men should not be treated like you are not believers. You would not start a church with me, just as I would not start one with you. We have a major difference on who are the correct recipients of baptism.

    And my comment was not condescending, or, at least, was not intended to be. It was a joke. I assumed that you would take it in good humor. Perhaps I was wrong. I miss you, Nathan. I would love to see you again.
42. nathan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 9:54 am

    I wouldn’t mind seeing you again, either, Ryan. Let’s set something up. We’d have to do like I did with my parents this Christmas – agree to not get into discussions. =)

    I think your last comment might show some other readers what I was talking about in my comment on the Fighting article. You misunderstand my (our?) position. We would start a church with you. If you take the time to read through both posts and all the comments, you’d notice that there is a distinct unity exhibited that chooses to honor the greatest command over all petty differences. If you are honest in your statement that you would not call us unbelievers, then it seems at best illogical that you would choose not to join with us to further the cause of Christ. How many separately maintained and named causes does He have?

    Well, I need to hop back to my Amazon tab and order the one copy they have left of Jewett’s book before it’s gone. I’m going to read it, though this comment from a customer seems to confirm what I think I’m going to find: “The reason for Dr. Jewett’s approach is clearly that he has made his decision from the beginning. This book reads like he has already made his decision, and whatever it takes, he is GOING to push the round peg into a square hole.”
43. Ryan says:

    January 4, 2006 at 10:05 am

    That’s a great comment you found. Of course, that does not validate or invalidate his position.

    Sorry about misunderstanding you. I am trying to get reading done for class, so barely have time to do this much, let alone read the world’s longest blog discussion (do I exaggerate?)! Anyway, I assumed that you would take a similar position to that of Ligon Duncan, the Presbyterian I am most familiar with (I’m a big fan). Perhaps I will read what you all have here and give it some thought as to how it would be possible. Several difficulties are passing through my head, but I should read you first.

    We should set something up.
44. pitchford says:

    January 5, 2006 at 12:01 am

    As far as the question of the feasibility of starting a church with someone holding to different convictions about the proper subjects of baptism, I would agree with Nathan, that it would be not only feasible, but appropriate and glorifying to Christ. Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, after arguing for credo-baptism, appends a brief discussion on practical steps for uniting believers holding to varying positions on the topic, within the same church body. I would agree with his assessment. The milieu of modern American evangelicalism (by which I intend all those who believe the gospel, not evangelicalism as opposed to fundamentalism) seems to lend itself to an ingrained acceptance of division over non-essential issues, but this is not the way it was from the beginning, and I am convinced, it is not the way of the church in every corner of the world. In communist China, I imagine that a credo-baptistic believer, if he found a genuine believer who is paedo-baptistic, would be thrilled to network together with him in the underground house church. Persecution and radical anti-Christian philosophy may do much to help us see the great foundation all believers share in common. The common gospel is certainly greater than all other points of division. Let me reaffirm that I think it is valuable for doctrinal discussion of every issue to be carried out as thoroughly as possible, but it should not be done so in an “us vs. you” mentality. I intend no rebuke to anyone here, only a reminder of the comparative greatness of the gospel in which we’re united. That gospel should be sufficient for us to establish a church together in spite of differences on such issues as baptism.

Search

Advertisement

Articles

• 01. Christ and the Cross (11)
• 02. Hermeneutics (5)
• 03. Covenant Theology (3)
• 04. Dispensationalism (8)
• 05. Apologetics (2)
• 06. The Atonement (5)
• 07. Doctrines of Grace (3)
• 08. The Law (3)
• 09. Baptism (5)
• 10. Unity (3)
• 11. Worship (5)
• 12. Missions (6)
• 13. Eschatology (10)
• 14. Book Studies (20)
• 15. Exegetical Notes (6)
• 16. Personal & Misc. (7)
• 17. Devotional & Invitational (8)
• 18. New Testament Book Introductions (27)
• 19. New Testament Book Outlines (32)

Site Information

• Contact Information
• Find Me Across the Net
• Personal Information

Storefront

• *Bookstore*
• Articles
• Dispensacionalismo (Portuguese)
• Fair Semblances
• Greatness of the Love of Christ, The
• Hidden Treasure, The
• If I Could Tell You Just One Thing
• Images of the Savior
• Images of the Savior from the Pentateuch
• Knowing Our God
• Knowing Ourselves
• Living Word, The
• Poems
• Studies in John
• Themes in Theology, vol. 1 – Christ and the Cross
• Themes in Theology, vol. 2 – The Church: Its Mission and Worship
• Themes in Theology, vol. 3 – The Word: Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
• Themes in Theology, vol. 4 – Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
• Understanding Isaiah
• What the Bible Says About Baptism
• What the Bible Says About the Doctrines of Grace
• What the Bible Says About the People of God

Recommended Links

• Recommended Articles
• Recommended Books
• Recommended Sites