This is my attempt to summarize my friend Nathan Pitchford’s arguments concerning paedobaptism, and to add some critiques/points to consider. There has already been many points brought forth in the ongoing debate. So this is more an attempt to understand where he is coming from. I have not completed all the research I would like to on this topic. Feel free to comment here, or over on Nathan’s blog.

—————————————————-

Nathan Pitchford,

I want to bring forth some arguments.

Let me start by making sure I understand exactly where you are coming from. From my reading all the discussion and posts, I seem to understand that the following represents your view of the case for paedo baptism.

First, you acknowledge that the following are arguments from silence used by each side.

Arguments from Silence

Credo baptists:

1. All examples of baptism are upon profession of faith.
2. No clear example of infant baptism.

Paedo baptists:

1. No abrogation of children being included in the covenant community.
2. No examples of 2nd generation NT-era believers baptisms.
3. Continuity of covenants implies that children should be given the sign of the new covenant (just as they were given the sign of the old covenant).
4. The assumption based on the household baptism passages is that because the head of the household believed, the household was baptized.

Then the following is the positive case made for paedo baptism (in outline form, and not necessarily in logical order).

Paedobaptist Positive Arguments

1. NT teaches the new covenant community includes some who will eventually fall away.
   • Rom. 11:17-24 seems to compare the Abrahamic covenant (which included all the same spiritual promises/blessings the new covenant offers Rom. 4, Gal. 3) to a root/tree which had members/branches (covenant members) broken off (only possibly if they were not full participants of the spiritual nature of the covenant, i.e. they had not had their hearts circumcised) and which had members/branches grafted in (inclusion of Gentiles under the new covenant) to the root/tree (representing, now, the new covenant) which still have the real possibility of also being broken off (just like the original branches were broken off, due to disbelief) if they do not continue in faith.
   • The warning passages in Hebrews could refer to new covenant participants who are not actually regenerate and thus will fall away without possibility of restoration.
2. NT teaches that there is a formal aspect to the new covenant community””the church (and that formal recognition is bestowed by church leadership and can be removed in church discipline).
   • Matt. 16:18-19.
   • Matt. 18:17-18.
   • Matt. 28:18-20.
   • Acts 1.
   • Acts 6.
   • 1 Cor. 5.
   • 1 Tim. 3.
3. NT teaches children are part of covenant community.
   • 1 Cor. 7:14 claims children are sanctified by the presence of even one believing parent, suggesting a participation in covenant benefits.
   • In Luke 18:15″”17 Jesus says the kingdom belongs to infants (the Greek word used in vs. 15) (“of such is the kingdom of God” ).
   • Household baptisms would fit into this idea of covenant inclusion.
4. NT teaches that new covenant believers are included in the Abrahamic covenant.
   • Gal. 3.
   • Rom. 4.
5. NT teaches that beneficiaries of new covenant blessings should be given Christian baptism.
   • Peter’s reasoning in Acts 10.
   • Jesus’ command in Matt. 28:19-20.
6. NT teaches that baptism is the sign of the new covenant.
   • Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants””Gen. 17, Rom. 4.
   • Circumcision symbolized both covenant inclusion and righteousness by faith.

   1) Rom. 4:11 says circumcision was “a seal of the righteousness that he (Abraham) had by faith” .
   2) Deut. 10:16 (and many other OT passages) uses circumcision as a picture of what happens in conversion, ie. “circumcision of the heart” .

   • Col. 2:11-12 says baptism symbolizes the “circumcision made without hands” (which is what physical circumcision symbolizes also).
   • Acts 2 :38ff. and 1 Cor. 12:13 teach baptism brings one into the church””the new covenant.
   • The NT seems to teach that circumcision should cease (thus leaving baptism as the new sign for the new covenant).

   1) Gal. 5:2-6 although written to Gentiles, nevertheless imply that circumcision is meaningless under the new covenant structure.
   2) Hebrews implies that all ceremonial aspects of the old covenant will be done away with due to the advent of a better covenant in Christ.

7. There is a certain sense of familial inclusion clearly taught in the NT.
   • Acts 2:39 “promise to you and your children” .
   • Acts 16:31 “Believe…and you shall be saved, and your house” .
   • The assumption based on the household baptism passages is that because the head of the household believed, the household was baptized.

Then these are your answers to credo baptist positive arguments and/or objections

Paedobaptist Counter Arguments

1. Credo baptists say: there are no NT examples of infant baptism, only of believer’s baptism, and further that the NT singularly declares “repent and be baptized” .
   • (As stated before) This is actually an argument from silence, as the NT gives the history of the spread of the gospel, and does not address 2nd generation new covenant member baptism.
   • All examples/contexts of “repent and be baptized” are directed to the conversion of family members/peoples/individuals who will become 1st generation new covenant members.
2. Credo baptists say: baptism is explicitly called an act of faith/appeal to God, and indicates an actual incorporation into Christ’s body (Col. 2:11-12, 1 Pet. 3:21, Gal. 3:26-27).
   • Circumcision is also said to be a sign and seal of faith that was already existent in Abraham””Rom. 4:11.
   • Yet that circumcision represented faith did not mean it could not be given to infants.
   • Further, while baptism is said to accomplish these things and to be performed with faith, it is also explicitly not a contributor to our justification/salvation (Rom. 3:20 and the whole NT).
   • Baptism is said to symbolize faith/conversion (Col. 2:11-12).
   • Since circumcision symbolizes the same thing (Col. 2:11-12, Dt. 10:16, and other OT passages), it does not necessarily follow that Baptism must be restricted to those who have faith.
3. Credo baptists say: The New Covenant was prophesied as a covenant of internal genuineness, and the New Testament church is consistently viewed as a pure body of believers, unlike the Jewish nation. Just as Jews were incorporated into the external body of God’s people at physical birth, so Christians are incorporated into the internally-genuine body of God’s people at spiritual birth, i.e. the occasion of faith and repentance.
   • The newness of covenant members being internally genuine, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13, is a newness in relation to the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. In fact, Jeremiah explicitly says that the New Covenant would be, “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…” The covenant made on that occasion was clearly not the Abrahamic, but the Mosaic. Hence it was the Mosaic that was “made old,” and “ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). By contrast, the Abrahamic was explicitly said to be eternal (Genesis 17:7).
   • Of this Abrahamic covenant, it was said as explicitly as it is said of the New covenant that it was pure. Everyone that is included in it was clearly spoken of in terms that deny the possibility of impure membership, e.g. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7). However, in this pure covenant, God explicitly commanded that some who were not genuine be formally included through the covenant sign, for example Ishmael and Esau. Hence it is at least not impossible for the New Covenant to be spoken of as pure, and yet for it to be commanded that the covenant sign be given to some who are potentially not genuine.
   • Several passages in the New Testament indicate that some who are formally members in the New Covenant are not actually genuine. (See above positive argument 1) Hence it is possible for persons to be genuinely incorporated into the New Covenant, and yet not be genuine believers. The purity-of-the-church argument could be formulated in precisely the same manner with regard to the Abrahamic covenant before Sinai: and yet, God commanded the sign of the covenant to be given to infants. Therefore, it is at least not implausible that the sign of the covenant be given today.

Thus, based on the above argumentation, you have postulated the following syllogism:

Major Premise:

 

“¢ God has commanded that covenant members be given the covenant sign (e.g. Genesis 17:7-10; Acts 10:47; Matthew 28:18-20)

 

minor premise:

 

“¢ The infant children of believers are covenant members (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19)

 

minor premise:

 

“¢ Today, baptism is the covenant sign (Colossians 2:11-12)

 

Conclusion:

 

“¢ God has commanded that infant children of believers be baptized.

So, do I understand your whole case correctly? Are there other important contributing arguments? Please let me know.

Further Points to Consider

Now, I have a few points for us to consider.

1. Gal. 4 teaches that the church (the new covenant community) is not a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant as originally given/administered (of which both Isaac and Ishmael were partakers) but that it is more specifically a continuation of the line of Isaac, for “you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise.” See below quote (it is at the very bottom of this comment) from Piper, who says it so much better than I.
2. Eph. 2 (particularly v. 14 “has made us both one” and v. 15 “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two” ) seems to teach that the newness of the new covenant is in relation to the inclusion of the Gentiles. It seems to say that there is now a new entity not just a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant removed. Chapter 3 asserts that this understanding was “hidden for ages” and “not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed” . So it seems that the new covenant to borrow (again) the words of Piper, “The Church is not a replay of Israel. It is an advance on Israel”.
3. John’s baptism stressed an internal repentance as necessary and prerequisite to his “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” . John ridiculed those whose trust was in their covenant membership, by family inclusion, and called them to express personal faith. Jesus continued this emphasis in saying that their old covenantal assurances based on inclusion were not enough under the new covenant. Jn. 1:11-13 seems to be teaching this same truth. Those who are children of God, and thus his heirs, members of the new covenant, are not born of natural descent, but of God. (Now I realize that under the old covenant (Mosaic) and under the Abrahamic covenant, internal faith was still necessary and was called for by the prophets. But the advent of the new covenant with its new administration emphasized a change in structure which made more clear/apparent the necessity of internal conformity. At least that seems to be emphasized more. See Piper’s article here, on the baptism of John).
4. Why were Jewish believers as late as A.D. 60-62 very concerned that Paul might be teaching believing Jews to stop circumcising their children, if they were understanding the NT message that circumcision is being replaced by baptism, since we use the new covenant sign to symbolize entrance into the new covenant community we are now in? Acts 21:17-26 (where even James, the Lord’s brother, presumably, does not think it would have been correct for Paul to teach that way, but rather assumes Paul did not teach that). And why does not Hebrews address circumcision’s abrogation or replacement with baptism? I understand this point is an argument from silence. So I contend it makes better sense to understand that baptism and circumcision were not viewed in such a continuitous (is that a word?) or synonymous way. And that once the Temple was destroyed, Jewish believers followed the spirit of Hebrews and ceased circumcision, too, instead finding their complete identity in the new covenant rather than in their national group (per understanding Paul’s teachings that we (all ethnicities and social classes) are all one in Christ, and circumcision does not matter in Christ Jesus). I really do not see a good explanation of that silence coming from paedo baptists.

I remain unconvinced, but (as I said before) I do respect your decision and views. I would like to know what you have to answer these arguments. And I do admit that I still have much studying to do in this issue.

Thanks,

Bob Hayton

—————————————————-

Here is my quote of Piper’s referenced above:

How Is the Church a Continuation of Israel? Now the question for us is: is the New Testament Church – the Church today -a continuation of the larger mixed group of ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is the Church a continuation of the remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ? Are we a Spirit-born, new covenant community with the law of God written on our hearts and defined by faith? We don’t need to guess at this.

 

Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians 4:22-28:

 

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise.”

 

Now who is “you brethren”? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham’s seed. The Church is not to be like Israel – a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is “like Isaac, children of promise.”

 

The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh – an ethnic, national, religious people containing “children of the flesh” and “children of God.” Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is an continuation of the true Israel, the remnant -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.

 

Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.

 

The church is the new covenant community – “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) – we say when we take communion. The new covenant is the spiritual work of God to put his Spirit within us, write the law on our hearts and cause us to walk in his statutes. It is a spiritually authentic community. Unlike the old covenant community it is defined by true spiritual life and faith. Having these things is what it means to belong to the Church. Therefore to give the sign of the covenant, baptism, to those who are merely children of the flesh and who give no evidence of new birth or the presence of the Spirit or the law written on their heart or of vital faith in Christ is to contradict the meaning of the new covenant community and to go backwards in redemptive history.

 

The Church is not a replay of Israel. It is an advance on Israel. To administer the sign of the covenant as though this advance has not happened is a great mistake. We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not because we don’t love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing church of the living Christ. Read the whole article…

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Also, check out Piper’s treatment of John’s baptism mentioned above.