1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).
2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.
3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example.
4 comments:
This is good stuff. I think most advocates of the credo position are quite ignorant of the paedo position. By that I mean they don't really understand the why of it all.
They're typically not aware of the covenantal nature of the covenant being applicable to children. If it is, then they should bear the sign of the covenant.
Really, the recipients of baptism is a symptomatic issue. The heart of the thing is the nature of the New Covenant and who is in it.
The pilgrimage of Jay the Bennett to "the darkside" has re-confirmed for me that the baptism issue really needs to take place at the issue of the nature of the covenant(s).
Good stuff, Jay.
I would humbly add to Dr. Duncan's explanation that we believe, as the Westminster Confession so aptly states, that baptism is efficacious-not just merely an empty rite. WCF 28 says it well in 5 & 6:
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
Gun: I agree. Baptism is a symptomatic issue. It really comes down to how one views the covenant.
Tony: I agree. Westminster is crystal clear on the efficacy of Baptism.
For me, my journey to the dark side was complete when I contemplated Christ's words- "this is the New Covenant in my blood..."
Did he mean a brand new covenant with no similarity or vital connection to the various covenants in the OT or did he mean "fulfilled" Covenant. The Jews would have fallen over to think their children were now not in "this" covenant. Surely such a covenant, that left out "covenant children" couldn't be considered a better covenant?
No, this is why Peter says while preaching in Acts 2- to a crowd predominantly Jewish- "this promise is to you and your children"...all in the context of his bidding them to be baptized. Can you imagine a Jew thinking, "oh, Peter means only professing adults should get baptized". No way. They would have been utterly shocked by the turn of events. Baptism from Circumcision was monumental enough, but dissing the children? No way. They would have been asking the Apostles constantly, at every turn. The Apostles would have to be addressing it over and over in the epistles. The very reason there is not more "explicit" mentioning of paedo-baptism in the NT is the lack of questions by the first century church. The transition from paedo circumcision to paedo baptism was clear to them.
So, it is true, the nature of the New Covenant and membership therein is the cruxt of the issue.
Post a Comment