What does Christ’s mediation look like for the unelect children who are within the covenant. Does He make any intercession for the unelect within the Covenant? If He does, does that mean some ofHis prescious blood is squandered?

Thank you

I believe the reference was 1 Peter 3:20f

Thank you all for this.

Do you have a link?

1 Peter 4:20?

http://www.1689federalism.com

I recommend reading it!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology/dp/1599253259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361632807&sr=8-1&keywords=pascal+denault

Here is the breakdown – Arminianism view would have us believe that people can fall from grace in a soteric way. In other words, we lose our salvation. The Presbyterian Reformed would say no, but you can fall away if you are only a formal member of the covenant. So all the “falling away” passages are not concerning soteric benefits but rather their covenantal status.

This means that we do not have to retreat to “hypothetical land” when we are discussing difficult passages like Hebrew 10:28ff. If the conflation between covenant and election takes place (which is what the Baptist usually argues) then anyone who is in “covenant” will be “elect” thus anyone who is in the formal will be in the vital. This is what we call an overly realized eschatology instead of an “already/not yet” eschatology.

The already/not yet eschatology means that the church (the institution the Lord has made a covenant with) is a mixed community. This is why the New Testament is full of warnings to the CHURCH, and they are real warnings.

The next question after we have gone this far, which I believe that you are in agreement with, is who gets the sign? What group of people get the sign of baptism? What group of people did the Lord give the sign to? Answer: Both. Both the people in the covenant (Ishmael) and election (Issac) are to receive the sign.

Now the next question should be, are children in the formal covenant? Ephesians 6 seems to say yes. They are commanded to obey the 5th commandment becasue it is the first commandment with a …. “promise.” Combine that with Acts 2 “this promise is to you and your children”. But what is the promise? The promise is that it will “go well in the land the Lord is giving you.” What land? – eschatological land. But where the children who first received that promise baptized? Yes, 1 Corinthians 10, they all (every household) were baptized and many fell when they put Christ the Test.

Maybe you can clear this up for me. What is the following quote supposed to mean?

“You can either adopt the Historically Reformed position of a distinction between covenant and election because we are in an already/not yet eschatological epoch OR you can be an Arminian.”

1. Contrary to what Gaffin and Tipton declared, I really can’t imagine a Reformed Baptist espousing a one-to-one correspondence between Covenant and Election (based off of Jeremiah 31:31-34 or any other text). In fact, I can’t see much difference between Calvinistic credo and paedo takes on this connection. Under both views, there is a larger contingent within the Covenant than within the ranks of the Elect. (Besides, most of those I have heard arguing for a hypothetical reading of Hebrews 6 have been paedo-baptists.) Brandon Adams attempted to make this observation. No one bothered to answer him. The olive tree makes sense whether those who are grafted in and then hacked off are baptized as infants or as post-infants making “valid” professions of faith. I would say that either way they “fall away” from the faith, but that’s not actually true of those baptized infants who never possess even a modicum of outward faith.

2. What’s the whole deal about being Arminian? That has me confused. Is it a reference to credo-baptists having to make a credible profession of faith of their own volition? If that’s the case, then every Presbyterian not baptized as an infant would also be Arminian. Please explain.

I honestly have no dog in this fight. I haven’t come down on either side. (I frankly find it curious that so many have, considering the complexity of the sacramental tradition exegetically and historically. I’m guessing a good 90 to 95% have no good reason for their decision.) I was baptized as an infant and raised paedo. I am currently a member of a Reformed Baptist church that did not require me to get re-baptized. I lean credo but would love to find a reason to change. Unfortunately, all the paedo authors I have read strike me as people who are trying to justify something they already believed in for dogmatic rather than exegetical reasons. The only text that has given me the kind of thoroughness and substance I desire was Beasley-Murray. Paedo texts are all froth in my experience. Tell me what I can read with some red meat, and I’ll go devour that.

Does anyone besides me find it curious that the Ark held no children? Shem was 98 years old when he entered the Ark. Did he really have no kids, or was he forced to leave them behind? Or did God intend to leave us a message concerning baptism? Just wondering….

I liked Gaffin and Tipton better than most, but there still doesn’t seem to be much substance there. What am I missing?

All the best,

–Eric

Thanks for a stimulating show. It has been many years since I read Jewett’s book. As I recall, I found Jewett’s book to be thought-provoking, but flawed by frequent references to Karl Barth. I was encouraged that some of you have read Jewett, however, I am not sure that he represents the current state of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology.

Fred Malone’s “The Baptism of Disciples Alone”, or Greg Nichols’ “Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants”, might have been a better choice. While I appreciate the value of Jewett’s book, there are a number of current books on the subject, by Reformed Baptists (which Jewett was not). It would have been nice if your panel had addressed recent thinking and writing on the subject.

Also, there are other kinds of arguments against paedobaptism, such as that of Fred Malone and others who argue against it from the standpoint of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Also, Stander and Louw argue that the historical evidence for paedobaptism in the early centuries of the church is very weak. Perhaps you could do another show that addresses some of these topics.

On a historical note: My father attended Fuller Seminary back in the early 50’s and sat under Paul K. Jewett for ST. I have my father’s copy of Jewett’s class syllabus called “Ecclesiology: Infant Baptism and Confirmation” which he later published in edited form as the book “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace”.

Anyway, thanks for all the good work you all do at Reformed Forum. I appreciate your ministry, in spite of our differences on baptism, and have derived much benefit from your shows over the years.

Okay. I assume that the choice of the word “administrations” in this instance is due to the need for a word with a more temporal connotation than “covenants” since the point being highlighted was the distinction between historia salutis and ordo salutis.

Richard, this may interest you.

David

In all honesty, yes, the fact that paedobaptist state they do different things with a outwardly confessing unbelieving 10 yr old is a concern to me. You made your point.

And if your point in all this discussion is to illustrate to us that we have a a fault in our hermeneutics because there is variance, then yes, you made your point. Thank you.

But I will point out to you that you can include the Baptist brethren in this group as well in regards to calling out error in their hermeneutics based on variance of practice with baptizing children. Ask a group of Baptist pastors if they will baptize a 4 yr old who confesses to be a Christian and the answers will vary. Many have a set age of 12 even though no age of qualified profession is found in scripture. Others may not have an age 12 qualification, but will say he is too young even though Christ says himself the faith of a child is valid. Is this variance any less Biblical than the OPC example? There is still a variance, and if there is a variance….

Richard, here is a quote from the PCA Book of Church Order:

By virtue of being children of believing parents they are, because of God’s covenant ordinance, made members of the Church, but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church. When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.

PCA Book of Order 56-4.j

I am not a paedobaptist, much less of paedobaptist officer, so take my comments for what they are worth… but I assume the “age of discretion” is on a sliding scale left to the “discretion” of church officers. If they feel Butch has entered this “age of discretion” and does not profess faith, then I assume they would consider him apostate/covenant-breaker, and thus not baptize him.

I sympathize with your concern that what churches do with children like this reveals inconsistencies in their continuity hermeneutic. I don’t see an “age of discretion” followed by profession of faith to ever be a requirement for national Israel/membership in the Old Covenant.

Sincerely, Richard

Richard, I agree with Ashwin. I answered your question because I was hoping you were here to learn. I will say though that I too was once a convinced credo-baptist, so it’s not like I don’t sympathize with your difficulty here. But as you probably know, the “sign and seal” language comes from Romans 4, in connection with Paul’s discussion of Abraham’s justification by faith. And yet Abraham’s infant sons and grandsons received the same sign and seal, even though Scripture is explicit that some of them were not worthy receivers and never would be. I can’t really add to what’s already been said here, but I would urge you to reconsider how Paul understands continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, especially as highlighted in Romans 4 and the latter half of Romans 11.

David, I don’t understand the point of your comment. Yes, I know Presbyterians confess WCF 7.6. That was the whole point of my comment. The participants of the show assumed their own tradition when arguing the debated points, and in my opinion they were wrong to do so. The bible never says “different administrations”. It says “different covenants”. That was my point. If we’re going to have any success in discussing this point of disagreement, we need to stick to the biblical language as much as possible, and on this point I felt the participants did not.

Richard,

I don’t think I’m going to convince you by this response, but I feel it necessary to point out that I don’t think your argument is with paedobaptism specifically, but rather with covenant theology as a system. David’s answer was spot on from a covenantal context – “Butch” would be baptized for being part of a covenant household. There is no “age of accountability” in the Scriptures, yet there does appear to be some point in time in the life of each child born into a covenantal home (that is, a home where at least one parent is a believer) where they go from being born holy unto the Lord to being responsible for their own faith. Is “Butch” past that age? Hard to say in your example, but from a covenantal perspective, the proper question is whether he’s still under his father’s authority. If he is, then he should be baptized. If he is not, then he should make a confession since he is not part of a household of faith.

I’d also add that you need to revisit your presupposition that “the NT qualification for baptism … is ‘if you believe with all your heart, you may (be baptized).” Is that a good and necessary inference from one text? Might I recommend that rather than debate people on this thread who may or may not be qualified or able to expound on hypothetical exceptions to God’s ordinary means of salvation, you study such books as “Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children” by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde? CTC just interviewed him on the last podcast and I’m in the process of reading his book, in which he accomplishes the phenomenal and gracious task of deconstructing the Baptist perspective that children are to be excluded from the sacrament of baptism.

Sincerely, Richard

Richard, I’m not a minister so no. But yes, he’s a covenant child and therefore, on that sole basis, he should receive the mark of admission into the visible church.

David,

So you would baptize 10 year old, unbelieving, covenant child Butch?

Brandon,

Surely you know that Presbyterians confess WCF 7.6: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”

Richard,

It’s not difficult. Children have membership in the visible church by virtue of parental authority (i.e., if one or both parents is a believer), and therefore, in their case a credible profession of faith is not required for (non-communicant) membership.

the author argues that the people are nevertheless in the visible covenant community of God.

1. The author does not argue that point, he assumes it – since it is quite obvious the people he is referring to are part of the Christian/church community.

2. But you’re taking that a step further and assuming he believes they are covenant members because of your commitment to an outer/inner covenant. This is nothing more than assuming what you’re trying to prove.

This would mean that Hebrews 2:1 , 3:12 ( notice the reference is to “brothers”), 4:1, 4:11, etc. would all have to be taken sarcastically.

I don’t think you understand the argument. There is no reason to believe those passages have to be taken sarcastically, because, as we’ve already agreed, the author does not know who is and who is not elect and therefore true “brothers”. He thus addresses them by their profession. This is entirely irrelevant to his address to someone who has abandoned that profession. If you haven’t read White’s essay, please refrain from attempting to refute it. It’s unhelpful to the discussion. White says that John 15 and Romans 11 are not sarcastic, and he gives reasons why. I don’t believe he addresses Gal 5:4.

Since my point was to discuss the Hebrews passages, since Camden threw it down as a direct challenge, I’d like to remain focused on those (and I would love to get a response from Camden, since he’s the one who asked how I could possibly understand the passages, and I have given an adequate understanding). I’d be happy to discuss those other passages at another time.

Sincerely Richard

I will let you know what I understand on your question although others may answer it better.

I know a pastor of Reformed faith who baptizes children of all ages. If the child is 5, he might ask, “Do you love Jesus?” as a question of faith before he baptizes. Is this child part of the covenant? Yes. Does this method resemble a “believers baptism” model? Yes.

He gave me an explaination that we grow in our Faith, and the Faith of a young child is different than an adult (Jesus addresses this), therefore a simple question/statment is done before hand instead of a more complex statement or even a class.

So if you are asking for an example rather than theology statement, there it is and take it for what its worth. I agree that this example may not line up with statements in this forum, and that it may cause more questions.

Here is a question I have that is similar: If Jesus says that infants/young children are possesors of the Kingdom of God (which is a statement of Faith without any expressed qualification), and that we as adults need their type of faith to inherit the Kingdom of God, then why don’t Baptistic churches give infants “believers baptism”? With that view, you wouldn’t even need to adhere to Covenant Theology.

Brandon,

Based on the above argumentation, you seem to throw in the idea the the author of Hebrews is limited in his knowledge of who may or may not be in the “real new covenant”. I would agree with your understanding of this idea. The author of Hebrews has no idea who is or who is not in the “real covenant of election.” Nevertheless, the author argues that the people are nevertheless in the visible covenant community of God. The author of Hebrews does explicitly make it clear that those people who apostatize were “sanctified by the blood of the covenant.” If we read sarcasm into the text, then when does the sarcasm begin and end? This position is woefully untenable. This would mean that Hebrews 2:1 , 3:12 ( notice the reference is to “brothers”), 4:1, 4:11, etc. would all have to be taken sarcastically. I would wonder if we are also to take Galatians 5:4 sarcastically becasue the Apostle Paul speaks of “falling from grace” and being “Severed from Christ”. How is one severed from Christ if he wasn’t already joined to Christ to begin with? Or to be even more frank, Jesus Christ (who obviously did KNOW the hearts of every man) states clearly “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.” I do not think this was Jesus being sarcastic. So what do we do with these texts (see the above reply that includes all of the Revelation passages)? You can either adopt the Historically Reformed position of a distinction between covenant and election becasue we are in an already/not yet eschatological epoch OR you can be an Arminian.

I have been checking on a semi-regular basis to see if someone would attempt to give a definitive answer on what we are going to do with “Butch”. I learn more about a person’s or church’s real beliefs on covenant membership by their position on what happens to Butch than all the exposition of Hebrews 6&10, 1 Corinthians 10, or Colossians 2 they can articulate. If Butch is born to Christian parents and was to be baptized in infancy because he is a covenant member ( Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 166 ) then why not baptize him at 10. Is he not in the covenant anymore? If covenant membership for children born into Christian families does not have anything to do with real personal faith ,( if it did we would never baptize infants) then why deny Butch baptism?
Thank you C. B. for responding. I also would like to see some in leadership tell us what they are going to do about Butch, and why. By the way I am a member in an OPC church, taking an exception on the issue of baptism, which the session has graciously allowed. I appreciate that in the church. I also know that Butch will never be baptized in this OPC while in unbelief. I don’t know how it is handled normally and thus my question in the above post.

Grace and peace to you also

Richard D.

Richard,

There is one other point to be added in response to your question. There is a further reason to restrict baptism to just infants and those who profess faith in Christ. Those who are NOT infants may either embrace OR reject the covenant. If a 6-year old embraces Christ and understands what Jesus has done for him, I see no reason why he shouldn’t be baptized. However, if that same 6-year old is taught the Christian faith and shows an unwillingness to credibly profess Christ, then baptism should probably be withheld until a later time. The willingness to either embrace or reject Christ seems to be the key distinction between an infant and non-infant.

Others with a different covenantal understanding may disagree with this reasoning, but this is my own take on the matter. Thoughts?

Richard D.,

God bless you for your great question! Your question is both very practical and gets to the core of our truest covenantal convictions. People are forced to make their true covenantal convictions explicit by actually dealing with your question. I’m just sorry there hasn’t been someone who has responded to it, from the standpoint of actual ecclesiological practice (except for the very brave Benjamin Glaser). In my opinion, your question has been the best one on this whole comment thread.

I’m a Presbyterian layperson and theological student, and not a church officer. I am also currently wrestling with the covenantal-credo and paedo positions on baptism. A credo position resolves your question quite easily. Presbyterian church officers, on the other hand, will not baptize non-infants who have not had a credible profession of faith. Instead, Presbyterians practice either infant-baptism OR baptism of those who have professed faith in Christ. We could perhaps expand the category of “infant” to include all those who have no way of comprehending any form of religion (0-3 years old?) I have never seen anything other than this form of church practice, nor have I ever heard of any other practice besides this.

OT practice of circumcision (whereby infants were particularly marked out on the eighth day for circumcision) seems to be a major influence on actual Presbyterian practice. But current Presbyterian practice doesn’t seem to account for the household baptisms in the Book of Acts which likely went beyond just infants. These household baptisms only begin to raise more questions:

1. Did entire households believe the Gospel and get baptized? (By the way, we probably need to take into account significant cultural factors, when answering this question.)
2. Was there a willingness among all those in the household to believe and be baptized, or not?
3. Are Presbyterians mistaken to incorporate these texts into their arguments for infant baptism?
4. Are we correctly understanding Acts 2:38-39 (which has become a paradigmatic text for Presbyterians)?

I’d love to see others chime in on your question, Richard. I at least wanted to venture a response, because I think your question is important and it matters. And I really thank you for raising it. Maybe you can try asking some actual Presbyterian elders and see what they have to say. I’d be curious to know myself.

Grace and peace.

Hi Mark,

Please don’t misunderstand my comment or question. It was not a bait and switch. It was a genuine question. Yes, I have answers, but I would like to understand why the participants of the show think my answers are wrong. I am trying to understand why they believe the warning passages necessitate their view of covenant theology. I read White’s essay last night after talking to you, so it clarified a few things in my mind. I really wasn’t just trying to set anyone up. Please forgive me if it came across that way.

Ha, I thought you had a question when it appears in fact you already had all the answers. My bad.

I think a lot of these discussions and debates are ultimately a result of differences in how one understands covenant theology. The surface issues are only secondary and the result of different starting points. Different starting points end up with different conclusions.

Well, obviously 🙂 But I thought the whole point of this episode was to try to address some of those underlying differences. Therefore, if the participants in the show argue that the Reformed Baptist reading of Jer 31 is wrong because the author of Hebrews teaches a dual-sanction, two-sided New Covenant, how is it helpful to then say that a Reformed Baptist won’t come to the same conclusion reading the text of Hebrews because they have a different understanding of covenant theology? Wasn’t the point of citing the warning passages in Hebrews an attempt to disprove an RB understanding of covenant theology?

In other words, how is it helpful to cite the warning passages as a refutation if they are a “surface issue” and are a result of differing covenantal presuppositions? I still fail to see how the warning passages necessarily teach a dual-sanction, two-sided New Covenant. I realize that some find it helpful background context for understanding the warning passages, but there is nothing in the warning passages that demands a two-sided view. R. F. White has a chapter in the Knox Colloquium on Auburn Avenue titled “Covenant and Apostasy”. In that chapter, White affirms his commitment to a two-sided, dual-sanction New Covenant, but he does not rely upon this commitment to explain the meaning of Hebrews 6:46 & 10:29.

My contention is that we should take our cue from the rhetoric of rebuke and reproach elsewhere in the Bible and interpret the biblical writer’s attribution of sanctification in Heb 10:29 as an example of reproachful irony (sarcasm).

Furthermore, White discusses the important point that the author of Hebrews is writing from a human perspective with limited knowledge. This has relevance to your “judgment of charity”. White notes:

In my view, it is precisely the nature of human knowledge and faith that we have to take into account when we interpret those assertions in which the biblical writers, conditionally and otherwise, attribute salvation ordained, accomplished, and/or applied to individuals. If we do so interpret their assertions, we find the necessary suppositions of their warnings include, not the (Arminian’s) inherent reversibility of faith, but the finite nature of human knowledge and the undifferentiated nature of faith initially confessed.

So when you say The Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to believers, covenant members, who are none the less at risk and to whom a word of exhortation is relevant, not to apostates. I would respond, with White, that you cannot make that claim precisely because the author of Hebrews does not know who is an apostate, so you cannot know it was NOT written to them. The book of Hebrews was written to professors, among whom may be believers, and among whom may be apostates.

At this point then you and I would come to the text with different understandings of covenant membership. You think that someone is a member of the New Covenant through profession (or profession of their parents). I think that someone is a member of the New Covenant through saving faith. Therefore, you say the epistle to the Hebrews was written to covenant members, while I say it was written to assumed covenant members, who may in fact be apostates and therefore not covenant members.

However, he does not know their individual hearts and he cannot divide the sheep from the goats. He does not have an “over realized” eschatology.

I dont think this is an accurate or fair reliance upon the “over realized” rebuttal. No Reformed Baptist believes they can know individual hearts. We simply admit that goats are not covenant members and that not everyone who has been baptized is a covenant member.

Hey Brandon,

I am sure there are others on here who can give a better answer than I can but why should I let that stop me? This is the internet.

Gaffin has a 20 lecture series on Hebrews. It used to be available on the web, but it is still available through Westminster Bookstore.

The very REAL warnings in Hebrews are directed at believers (corporately and personally), the covenant community who truly are in a wilderness situation (compared to OT Israel) in which exhortation to hold fast; to not loose hope, to persevere to the end is pertinent. The warnings to believers are real, not hypothetical, not a scare tactic hoping to manipulate them into perseverance. Although by what has been called “the judgment of charity” the readers are viewed by the writer of Hebrews as the visible church, believers, members of the covenant, and have even tasted significant spiritual/covenant blessings, perseverance is needed so that none may succumb to unbelief and fall away in the desert like the Israelites did in the wilderness. In order to hold fast they must look to our Great High Priest, Jesus, who is seated at the right hand of the majesty on high (Hebrews 8), and who knows our weakness because he learned obedience by what he suffered. So what about assurance? Assurance is in Christ and holding fast to Christ, not in a profession I made 30 years ago or something I can conjure up. I can be certain of my salvation because I know that Christ cannot fail and he promised to never leave nor forsake, not because Mark G has convinced himself. Although the warnings are real, the author is sure their faith is real and that they will persevere (by judgment of charity). He can look at his readers, recognize their need for exhortation and their at risk situation, and at the same time view them as covenant members and believers. However, he does not know their individual hearts and he cannot divide the sheep from the goats. He does not have an “over realized” eschatology.

An apostate is not a covenant member by virtue of their being apostate. The Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to believers, covenant members, who are none the less at risk and to whom a word of exhortation is relevant, not to apostates.

The wilderness motif is important in Hebrews. The author compares the situation of his readers to that of the Israelites (members of the Old Covenant) and warns them not to fall because of unbelief. Not only is the NC people in the wilderness like Israel, they have an even greater responsibility because they are members of a better covenant. They have a better mediator, a better prophet, priest and king.

These are just my musings. Maybe they will help someone; maybe not, but if not no big loss. This is the internet.

Just one more…. I think a lot of these discussions and debates are ultimately a result of differences in how one understands covenant theology. The surface issues are only secondary and the result of different starting points. Different starting points end up with different conclusions. Commitments to certain conclusions rule out certain starting points.

Thanks

The writer of Hebrews is saying two apparently contradictory things: a) It’s all or nothing difference between old and new – Christ had not yet come in old b) and yet in administration of the covenant, there is fundamental continuity: God has one house building constructive project in history

Camden added, again paraphrasing:

only one house, one olive tree, one project w/ different administrations

I bring this up simply to implore you to use biblical language where possible. I have no problem with systematic constructions and labels, but too frequently in this debate I see the biblical language being discarded in favor of constructs. In this particular instance, the biblically correct way to articulate this thought would be to say

only one house, one olive tree, one project w/ different covenants

That is what the text says.

Hi Camden,

Thanks for this reference to Romans 11:11-24. I’m not convinced your interpretation is correct.

You say that v20-22 refers to those who are not vitally united to Christ because they do not have faith. However, it seems clear to me that the text teaches the only way to be *grafted* in is by faith. So, from the text, I’m not certain how someone without faith could ever be *grafted* in to something they are not a natural part of. In this regard, I think your view requires you to believe that the children of believers are natural branches, but it is clear from the text that all Gentiles are wild and have been grafted in through faith.

Concerning the timing of this pruning, there are at least two possibilities:

1) This is simply how the “covenant of grace” has always operated. People have always been included as natural branches by birth and cut off when they demonstrate an absence of faith. Thus Paul is just expounding on what has always been the case regarding the olive tree and will always be the case until Christ returns.

2) Paul is referring to a change in the olive tree that occurred at Christ’s first coming, a change that forever altered the olive tree. Prior to this change natural branches grew unhindered and there were no wild branches. At a particular point in time, all the unbelieving natural branches were cut off and replaced by believing wild branches. Thus the tree is no longer of a mixed believing/unbelieving nature, but consists only of believing branches. New branches, either natural or wild, may only be added through faith (v23-24)

John Owen provides an excellent defense of the second view in his essay “The Oneness of the Church” You can find it in full here http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-oneness-of-the-church-john-owen/
And here is the directly relevant portion:

——6. We have seen that Abraham, on the account of his faith, and not of his separation according to the flesh, was the father of all that believe, and heir of the world. And in the covenant made with him, as to that which concerns, not the bringing forth of the promised Seed according to the flesh, but as unto faith therein, and in the work of redemption to be performed thereby, lies the foundation of the church in all ages.
Wheresoever this covenant is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the church; unto whom all the promises and privileges of the church do belong. Hence it was, that at the coming of the Messiah there was not one church taken away, and another set up in the room thereof; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant.
It is true, the former carnal privilege of Abraham and his posterity expiring, on the grounds before mentioned, the ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them; for whereas both these, — namely, the carnal and spiritual privileges of Abraham’s covenant, — had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made (Malachi 3) who of the Jews had interest in both, who in one only, those who had only the carnal privilege, of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also, — that is, in all the promises annexed unto the covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church, unto which the promises belong, remained with them that were heirs of Abraham’s faith only.
7. It remains, then, that the church founded in the covenant, and unto which all the promises did and do belong, abode at the coming of Christ, and doth abide ever since, in and among those who are the children of Abraham by faith. The old church was not taken away, and a new one set up, but the same church was continued, only in those who by faith inherited the promises. Great alterations, indeed, were then made in the outward state and condition of the church; as, —
(1.) The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation to bring forth the Messiah, then failed; and therewith their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham.
(2.) The ordinances of worship suited unto that privilege expired and came to an end.
(3.) New ordinances of worship were appointed, suited unto the new light and grace then granted unto the church.
(4.) The Gentiles came in to the faith of Abraham together with the Jews, to be fellow-heirs with them in his blessing. But none of these, nor all of them together, made any such alteration in the church but that it was still one and the same. The olive-tree was the same, only some branches were broken off, and others planted in; the Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room.——-

Thanks for posting that link Jason. Welty does a great job of dissecting the text.

Is Paul’s point that Abraham’s circumcision was somehow unique from others? If so, then I fail to see how this text can be used to establish a general meaning for circumcision. Paedobaptists may find it elsewhere, but to claim that Rom 4:11 is a “lynchpin” for paedobaptism leaves paedobaptism on very little ground to stand.

Gaffin lamented that credobaptists gloss over Romans 4 by saying circumcision was a seal of Abraham’s faith when the text says it was a seal of the righteousness which is received by faith. I would encourage him to read what A.W. Pink has to say in his book The Divine Covenants:

—The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had.” Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God’s Word, for nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself; and even in his case, so far was it from communicating any spiritual blessing, it simply confirmed what was already promised to him. As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his—by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualized, but an earnest of that which was yet future—namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ—
-A.W. Pink http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants_04.htm

Hi Mike,

My bad, I didn’t mean to imply (as the Federal Visionists do) that baptism is itself the instrument. I hold to the “sign and seal’ language of our Reformed fathers; it’s effective only to the extent that it reflects true faith. But we’re not Zwinglian either, are we? Is it merely a sign? I have to confess I struggle (as a former credo myself) with how baptism can be a “seal” unless I also hold to an Arminian view (which, thankfully, I do not). If baptism is both “a sign and seal” of our salvation in Christ, and if I’m a five-point Calvinist (which I am), then I feel compelled to be a paedobaptist as well.

I’ll also bow out now. Thanks for the dialogue!

Peace,
Ashwin

Ashwin,

Thanks for the detailed response. I’m certainly getting a better picture of the paedobaptist view and if any other paedos reading along think it not representative of your view, maybe you’d like to chime in. Just a couple of thoughts…

You said that baptism is the instrument of our union with the circumcision of Christ. I would say that we are united to Christ by faith alone and that baptism represents (flows out of) that union in one way or another. I do not mean this as a cheap shot, but as I understand it, your view sounds very Federal Visionistic in nature. Are not all those united to Christ’s circumcision glorified in the great day? Is not union, according to some (and probably most here), the chief blessing that grounds all others including righteousness, holiness, and redemption… and yet we get all these through baptism? I think part of the problem is that extra word you’ve added in there at your explanation of Col 2:11, namely, “How?” Can’t baptism and faith be further down the road than the circumcision of Christ rather than the elaboration of that very grace?

As for some of the Jews not believing in Christ, even those that were baptized, is not the issue and for what it’s worth I agree. But clearly their baptism was voluntary, i.e. they professed a degree of faith by their coming unto the baptismal waters. This is a common misconception and probably well-deserved by some baptists. That is, we do not baptize believers only (for, really, who knows who truly believes?), but we baptize those with, as it has been called, a credible profession of faith. No we do not have election goggles, just like paedos don’t even though they require a credible profession from adults who desire baptism.

Thanks for your time and I’d gladly read another post from you, my brother, but unless it’s urgent I’ll gracefully bow out now. Kind regards.

Hi Mike,

I hope I’ve understood your question correctly, so I will do my best to respond. Please let me know if I’m responding to a straw man, as that isn’t my intention.

Yes, Paul is assuming faith. But follow his logic in Col. 2:7-14. First, to whom is Paul writing? Verse 13 indicates his audience is Gentile: “You, who were dead in your trespasses AND THE UNCIRCUMCISION OF YOUR FLESH.” So before that Paul wrote (v. 11): “In him also you were circumcised…” Stop there for one second. If I’m a Gentile and I hear someone read that, my first thought is: “Wait, I wasn’t circumcised!” Paul continues: Yes, you were “with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” Paul’s argument is two-fold: first, Jewish circumcision looked forward to Christ’s circumcision, and second, Gentiles have been united to Christ’s circumcision as well. Accordingly, Gentiles and Jews share circumcision in common in Christ. How? Paul continues: “having been buried with him in baptism.” So baptism is the instrument by which all are united to Christ’s circumcision.

Obvious questions follow:

1. Were the Jews baptized by water? Clearly, John came baptizing in the Jordan, and many Jews came to him. God baptized the Jews in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Indeed, even before Israel was created, God baptized the world in the days of Noah (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

2. Was water baptism administered before or after a confession of faith? Read any of the Gospels regarding water baptism and clearly many were being baptized (even by Jesus!) who did not believe in Him (this is how I understand John’s admonition to his disciples who were jealous of Jesus’ baptism in John 4:22-36). Even Paul in 1 Cor. 10:2 says that God baptized the Jews yet was not pleased with them. And clearly the baptism of the world in the days of Noah resulted in judgment!

3. So what baptism is Paul referring to in Col. 2? Scripture affirms there are two baptisms: one is water baptism, administered by God within the church, and the second is baptism of the Holy Spirit. We cannot see who is baptized by the Holy Spirit, so clearly we must affirm the visible church-invisible church distinction in and through the sacraments. Just as circumcision corresponds to faith and yet faith was not a precondition for the sacrament, in the same manner baptism corresponds to faith and yet is not a precondition. We have to understand water baptism as a sign of our need for something greater (baptism of the Holy Spirit) and God’s seal upon the elect. In other words, I don’t see how a Gentile or a Jew would hear Paul’s words in Col. 2 and not immediately reflect upon how God used circumcision by human hands to point to Christ but not to necessarily affirm those who were, as a consequence, in Christ. Paul must be assuming that his hearers had been baptized by the Holy Spirit and their hearts were circumcised. Accordingly, in this passage he’s reminding them of the sacraments as evidence of the work that only God can do.

Peace,
Ashwin

Ashwin,

Thanks for the well tempered comment and I hope this brief comment will sit well with you and other readers. For all the long arguments both sides use pertaining to covenantal structure and continuity, hermeneutics, etc. we often find ourselves looking right back at Col 2 again… kinda funny to me. Very briefly, I agree that there is, as you put it, a connection between baptism and circumcision, but “connection” is a very broad relation. All doctrine is connected, for it forms a logical system…with that I’m sure you’ll agree. But unless one is willing to call our water baptism a circumcision done without hands, it is not the connection you wish to establish. The connection between circumcision and baptism is more remote. Physical circumcision was typical of circumcision of the heart (regeneration), not Christian baptism (So when God in the Ot says he will circumcise their hearts He was not saying to keep an eye out for Christian baptism). Circumcision of the heart is manifested by, at least, faith… that is, explicit, not implicit, faith in Christ (see v.12). Perhaps this has degenerated to a my-verse/your-verse thing that so many despise. If you could answer this question, or any other paedobaptist please: Are not verses 7-14, for example, absolutely saturated with terms that would properly predicate only those that have placed their trust in him? Like…
“established in the faith, as ye have been taught”
“ye are complete in him”
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands”
“also ye are risen with him through the faith”
“And you…hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us”

Can these things be said of one who does not believe the gospel? For clarity, I’m not saying a child, and infant, or even a fetus, can’t believe the gospel. I believe they can by God’s grace, even as John did in the womb of his mother. But what I’m saying is that if the entire class of people spoken of in this text have been baptized, are known to be believers, and have received the circumcision of Christ without hands, then there is an inherent difference between the administration of one mark versus the other. Probably not well said, but I gotta go. Thanks again for the dialogue.

Hi Mike,

Let me first respond that I know baptism is an emotionally-charged issue and that forum rules encourage civility. I am certainly interested in conversing with Christian brothers who disagree with my views with charity. So thanks, up-front, for the polite tone of your response, and I hope to convey the same in mine.

I am not sure what being Presbyterian has to do with anything, unless by that you mean those within the broader Reformed camp. I am Presbyterian, but this issue comes down to one, as I’ve argued, that stands on Sola Scriptura. And my argument is that the Scripture isn’t silent on this matter, but has expressed God’s will clearly through His commandments. Of course there is no commandment to go baptize infants specifically, but I believe it is assumed in the commandments to disciple our children continually as well as to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching.

The fact that paedobaptists don’t argue with my conviction or may, as you suggest, disagree with me is frankly shameful. Do we not believe that Col 2:10-12 connects the Abrahamic sacrament of circumcision to the New Covenant sacrament of baptism? If so, then did God’s interest suddenly fade from the day when God actually sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his child (Ex 4)? I don’t believe so, as Paul clearly used inflammatory rhetoric to chide the Galatians for failing to understand how circumcision as a sign found fulfillment in Christ. In other words, if it’s true that few if any paedobaptists adopt my strong tone, that is not evidence that I am wrong. Please prove me wrong with Scripture alone! I continue to affirm that though there are many aspects of Christian piety that require good and necessary inferences, not all aspects qualify. Baptism is one such example because Scripture does not offer equal evidence on both sides of the issue. Whether you understand or agree with it aside, if Reformed Christians truly held to Sola Scriptura, then baptism is one place we’d all agree to baptize infants.

Would I baptize granny in your example? It’s up to the church to determine if she’s being discipled. I wouldn’t argue doing so simply because a Reformed Christian adult happens to be caring for her. Again, this is as much as my mind can comprehend from Scriptural evidence. As to your second question, churches are responsible for making disciples through Word AND sacrament ministry. Both are required.

Ashwin,

Thanks for the reply. I’m replying here because I could not find a reply button under your comment. For clarity then, if granny comes to church with her believing son-in-law who is taken her in, for those are his rules, then she should be baptized, right?

I noticed you said that the church should baptize disciples and you also said that we should “make disciples of all nations through baptism and teaching.” For clarity do we make disciples by teaching alone, baptizing alone, or the necessary conjunction of the two. Thanks.

As to your comment on rejecting God’s explicit commands, that is preposterous. In fact, any presbyterian worth their salt would say that infant baptism is not explicitly commanded, but by implication only. If by explicit you mean the great commission, then it’s not only credos that reject your interpretation of that command, but a great many paedos also who do not automatically baptize adults who are pupils in the church, but only those who profess the faith.

FWIW, I’m not denying the validity of good and necessary consequence, for that which is logically deduced from scripture is also the word of God. But as of yet I have not seen the sound argument that necessarily implies the baptism of non-professors.

I feel that credobaptists want a law when God has already given us a law. All whom the church disciples should be baptized. Infants and children are discipled in the church, so baptize them. If anyone isn’t discipled, then don’t baptize them.

There’s no age prescribed by God’s Word; what God demands is obedience to His Word by discipling our children (Deut. 6:6-7) and make disciples of all nations through baptism and teaching (Matt. 28:19-20). How that happens in the church depends upon each person’s particular situation: are they or are they not considered under discipleship in the church? Let the pastors and elders use wise judgment in accordance with God’s Word to make that determination. But why do credobaptists demand a new law when they clearly reject God’s explicit commands?

Would love to have had James Dolezal interact with the professors, but perhaps that would have been awkward for him.