Investigating Infant Baptism - Part 1 Of N
You can read part 0 here.
It has actually been an year and a half since I wrote the previous part. During that time, many things transpired which made me postpone writing this second part.
And during that time, I had also concluded my investigation.
I concluded that infant baptism is not Biblical, and only believing persons should be baptised.
Anyway, infants should not be baptised and the practice is not Biblical.
As part of my investigation, I had some read some books (not cover to cover), quite a number of articles, and spent a good deal talking to a theologian who had become a credobaptist from being a pedobaptist. I picked his brain trying to argue from different angles to understand how the argument for pedobaptism is constructed in order to come to a conclusion.
This is the same brother I had mentioned in part 0, who has now become my mentor. More about that later.
To be honest, writing a polemical article in order to disprove people I know who espouse pedobaptism was an urge that I had to fight for a long time. I realised that it was a mistake. Plus, I don't have the mental bandwidth to write such an article like an academic theses. Therefore, the remaining part of this article will mostly be bullet pointers.
- The two books that I primarily read were The Baptism Debate by Peter Goeman, and The Christ Of The Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson.
- I read a booklet written by J. I. Packer titled "An Introduction To Covenant Theology".
- I also read through a bit of the article A String Of Pearls Unstrung by Fred A. Malone (who also has written a book on the subject), and literature here and there.
- I say here and there because most of them were scattered articles and blog posts on the Internet.
- The basis of the Reformed Presbyterian argument for pedobaptism is Covenant Theology itself.
- This is why a lot of credobaptists fail to effectively argue with pedobaptists.
- The best argument they seem to find is that "it is not in the Bible".
- "It is not in the Bible" is indeed a right argument, however, it is not easily accepted because for a Reformed Presbyterian, it doesn't matter. I'll tell you why.
- The "household" argument is the weakest Reformed Presbyterian argument. I am referring to the argument that children "could have been present" in places the word household was used. This does not prove or disprove anything. In a court of law, such an argument is easily thrown out.
- I eventually understood that in order to attack (theoretically) the RP case for infant baptism, I need to understand their Covenant Theology.
- O. Palmer Robertson's book (and also Goeman's) helped me with that.
- According to RPs, there is in fact only three covenants that are in relevant to the history of man, and all the different covenants in the Bible are "administrations" of these few.
- What does that even mean?
- It means that each specific covenant (Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant) are part of the same covenant or rather they are "instances" of an overarching covenant called the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
- The third but the first (chronologically) is named the Covenant of Redemption which is actually a covenant between the three persons of the Trinity.
- I was concerned only with the third (chronologically) covenant: the Covenant of Grace.
- So, according to an RP the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant. RPs believe that they only differ in how they were administered.
- To illustrate, the Abrahamic covenant instituted circumcision, which was the "seal and sign" of the covenant. Similarly, RPs say that baptism under the New Covenant is the counterpart of circumcision.
- This is all fine and dandy until you actually read the text of each covenant in the Bible, and the book of Hebrews.
- Before this, one must know that the three Covenants themselves are disputed among the Reformed camp. Some only affirm two (O. Palmer Robertson disputes the Covenant of Redemption), some three. Then there are some who question whether the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
- My view?
- There are indeed covenants in the Bible; no one can dispute that.
- However there is no indication or mention of the archetypal covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace.
- Here is where my lawyer training kicked in, and how I formed my views on covenants in the first place.
- Why do persons enter into covenants/contracts?
- Okay, some people have been ignorantly saying that covenants are not contracts. For all intends and purposes covenants are contracts, where "covenant" is the archaic word used for contracts (if you look at most old (and some new) contract documents you'll see, "the parties hereby covenant..."). Of course, covenants extend to other legal instruments (check out "covenants that run with the land" under property law). But the elements of contracts and covenants are the same; a promise, quid pro quo, and consideration (reward).
- So, why do people into contracts/covenants then?
- Because of frailty. Because people do not trust each other.
- A "trust me bro" is not enough when you are doing business (other legal mandates in certain jurisdictions also require that parties contract).
- When a word and trust are not enough is the time when people enter into contracts/covenants.
- Only then are people serious enough to fulfill the terms of the contract in order to maintain the relationship. The seriousness of the relationship is expressed through the covenant.
- Here is where I have my first contention. That the persons of the Trinity do not need a covenant.
- They live in eternal love and trust. It's a matter of the decree of God, heart and love, not a matter of fulfillment of covenant stipulation that the redemption of man took place.
- The only instance of the persons of the Trinity entering into a covenant is the New Covenant, only because Jesus the Man is a party to the covenant.
- Now then, why did God enter into covenants with men?
- It's because of what I mentioned earlier. Man understands a serious relationship only through covenants, because of his frailty.
- So, I posit that it was an anthropomorphised approach of God to enter into covenants with man for man to understand the nature and seriousness of the relationship.
- The underlying basis of the relationship between God and man has always been trust.
- It is heartless and cold to assume that God fulfills his promises merely because He is bound by covenant. Of course He is bound by covenant, only because He chose to express the relationship with us because of our heart's conditions.
- The Lord said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, which means that God does not like divorce.
- Moreover, towards the end of his ministry Paul writes, "I know whom I have believed and persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day."
- This was the best place to talk of "Covenantal Faithfulness" like a lot of RP pastors preach, but Paul chose to bank on his knowledge of Him (through a trust-based relationship) and God's ability rather than merely contractual obligations.
- Imagine telling your wife, "dear I am doing all this for you because I entered into covenant with you".
- Don't be foolish to interpret the above as me rejecting Biblical covenants and the marriage covenant.
- I am merely attacking the exaggerated exaltation of covenants which leads to a cold inorganic Christian faith.
Now, what does all the above to do with infant baptism?
- We see that the archetypal Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace are mere theological constructs.
- We can't see any mention of such covenantal archetypes anywhere in the Bible.
- Does it mean they are anti-Biblical? Not necessarily. They are theological suggestions, at their best.
- Hey! We only looked at the Covenant of Redemption and not the other covenant types.
- I won't be talking much about the Covenant of Works. Again, this is also a disputed covenant (firstly, God does not call it a covenant, and Adam was not a fallen being at that time, then there is no mention of what God will do).
- Even then, the Adamic covenant existing or not existing does not have to do much with the case for infant baptism.
Poor textual exegesis:
- RPs essential argue that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant are the same, because they look the same.
- They call it the structural and thematic unity of the covenants.
- They go to the extent of saying that "to be God to you and to your offspring" is same as "I shall be a father to him" (Genesis 17:7 versus 2 Samuel 7:14).
- The mere templates-like similarity is considered to be equivalency.
- They ignore that the the parties, and the subject matter of the covenants are different!
- The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls the Old (Mosaic) Covenant obsolete, and says that the New Covenant is a better covenant based on greater promises and points to how substantially different it is from the Old Covenant.
- To call for similarity of covenants when they are even worded similarly is to forsake logic and high school grammar.
- The words "old" and "new" covenants should have answered it simply. Or else it should have been "yet another covenant".
If the covenants are not the same then there is no question of replacements or counterparts. Even then, there are attempts to reconcile circumcision and baptism.
- Nowhere in the Bible is baptism referred to as the seal and sign of anything. The only seal mentioned under the New Covenant is the seal of the Holy Spirit.
- People use Colossians 2:11-12 to argue for baptism replacing circumcision; a colossal mistake.
- First, the circumcision mentioned there is not the physical circumcision of Jewish babies. So there is no question of it being replaced by anything.
- Then, baptism is not spoken as antithetical to circumcision in the above verses.
- Paul is a talking about the list of things that the believer has gone through: 1. putting off the body of sins of the flesh 2. the burial of that body 3. resurrection of the body
Mere proximity of words does not mean that they are antithetical or identical.
Some even read 1 Peter 3:20-21 as talking about household baptism because Noah and family are mentioned there!. The eight souls were adults by the way.
Then there are some "practical" arguments that both side raise, immersion v. sprinkling, more water v. less water, the Philippians jail having a baptism tank (being a prison they definitely would have) etc.
The funniest thing that I learnt was the use of the word "baptism" to argue for sprinkling. Baptizo, the Greek word is not a technical term. It is only the Greek word for immersion.
It's like saying "dunking can also mean sprinkling".
Phew... I have been writing for a while. And I am in no mood to edit and trim the above for aesthetics, also while battling a sore throat and cold.
Now, what is the big practical problem of baptising infants?
- Generally, from a young age people raise "dead" Christians (an oxymoron) without evangelizing to them (there are exceptions).
- Children are counted as members of the invisible Church (there's a whole lot of theological gymnastics behind this).
- Which leads to the Presbyterian church (or any church practising infant baptism) growing through biological reproduction rather than evangelism.