Mt.28:18-20 are familiar verses. They are used by our Baptist friends to teach the necessity of adult (believer's) baptism by total immersion. Within the context, this is right and proper. Where they go astray is when they apply this teaching to covenant families, and refuse to give to the children born into covenant families the God-appointed sign and seal of the covenant - baptism. They require them to wait until they themselves believe, after which they must be baptised by total immersion.
In Mt.28, the nations knew nothing of God's gracious covenant, or covenant of grace, which He entered into with Abraham (Gen.15). Covenant people stand in a totally different spiritual position to the nations which did not know God. They have privileges that others do not have. So a distinction has to be made between the children of covenant parents and those of parents who are not in the covenant.
5 comments:
" Where they go astray is when they apply this teaching to covenant families, and refuse to give to the children born into covenant families the God-appointed sign and seal of the covenant - baptism. They require them to wait until they themselves believe, after which they must be baptised by total immersion."
Leaving aside for a moment what Baptists may or may not believe.
As is often the case, terms and words need to be defined for the sake of clarity and in order to arrive at biblical truth on any matter.
I'm not sure therefore what "covenant families" are? The Bible speaks of many covenants - which one is referred to above?
As for children, and in this case I presume you refer to non Christian children of believing parents, the important question to ask is: Are such children in Adam, or in Christ?
Or put another way as Scripture states it: Are they "in the flesh or in the Spirit" (Rom.7:5)
Christians appear to be lacking in knowledge of basic reformed theology which is quite saddening. Perhaps you should read up on what the Abrahamic covenant is about, and also what the sacrament of Christian baptism is, so that you will understand that baptism is not something WE do but something that is DONE to us! Only the paedobaptist position fulfils this criterion; the baptist position reverses it.
"Christians appear to be lacking in knowledge of basic reformed theology"
To which I would add .. but not necessarily basic Biblical theology - a different thing in many important respects!
It is a sad commentary on Christian priorities in any age which must need engage in the distraction of discussions on 'baptism' of any kind. Speaking of "basic theology", I wonder what part of Mark 16:16 ANY believer finds difficult?
For my wife and I, as for many others the "problem" of baptism arose through the clear conversion of our oldest daughter (aged 6yrs). What should we (she) do about baptism? Clearly we had to go ahead in obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture. In turn, this made us examine for the first time the various theories which abound on 'infant baptism' within the context of the wider subject.
We read many 'paedo' authors like Marcel, Murray, Berkhof etc, and agreed with a general consensus of others in their opinion that these men were confusion confounded on this issue.
Several essential issues arise:
First, and yet again, the authority and sufficiency of Scripture ALONE as our source of authority.
We know that the historic long dispute within the Christian church only arose through the import of the 'baptismal regeneration' error of the medieval church and Rome in particular. It remains with us today.
Second. It is right to assert that the doctrine of Christian baptism is crystal clear in Scripture - so much so that there should be no dispute about it. In terms of clear precept, 1.e. Mark 16:16 and other similar texts of the NT there is no lack of clarity and these are deliberately unambiguous.
The very many examples of baptisms taking place in the NT simply confirm such clarity.
Third, of necessity the requirement for Christian baptism must be one, not so much a matter of dispute and debate, as one of obedience to a clear command. Belief and baptism therefore are ALWAYS welded together in Scripture, both in terms of precept and practice, and without one single exception.
Thus a majority of paedo writers fully concede, in the words of B.B.Warfield that
"It is true that there is no express command to baptise infants in the NT, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptised" (Studies in Theology p.399)
Leaving aside the minor question of the 'mode', in searching the scriptures for a definitive 'doctrine' of baptism we must bear in mind the basic and fundamental command in Matt.28, Mk.16 and other parallel passages, which restricted the Apostle's authority to baptise those ONLY who believe.
Infants, unbelievers, and any others are, by definition, therefore excluded as subjects for baptism.
You ask readers to look at the God's covenant with Abraham.
Abraham is indeed a significant figure for Christians and there is much NT discussion about the "seed" of Abraham, but I find no conncection with baptism or its subjects here!
Much is made by some of the "covenant of grace", but again there is no evidence for such a covenant - (God's grace runs as a reassuring theme throughout scripture - as does God's purpose (Eph.1:10,11). There are many covenants and much about 'grace', but not a "covenant of grace" as such - in neither testaments.
So I return to the question - are the children of believers, unless and until they are born again spiritually and believing the Gospel, "in Adam, or in Christ?
That I suggest is the nub of the baptist question, and has profound implications also for the content and truth of the Gospel itself.
In my last post I raised the question, prompted by the original poster's comments "Where they (Baptists) go astray....." etc.
Can anybody therefore supply an answer to the question please?
" Are the children of believers, unless and until they are born again spiritually and believing the Gospel, "in Adam, or in Christ?
Additionally, can anybody explain in simple terms what actual benefit accrues to an infant who is baptised?
Covenant children are 'in Adam' until they are 'born again' by God's Spirit. No one is a Christian until s/he has been born into God's family - that is basic Christian knowledge. Benefits? They have the inestimable privilege of bring brought up in a Christian home, are taught the Gospel of God from infancy, and have access to all the privileges of the covenant. That being so, there is no theological reason why children born to covenant parents are not to be given the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, which is baptism, and every reason why they should be given it. Are the children of believers in any way different to the children of pagans? Are their situations and circumstances different from those of pagans and all other unbelievers? Do these children have privileges that the others do not have? If there is a fundamental difference between them, that is because of God's covenant faithfulness.
Post a Comment