Heart circumcision is a Mosaic reality

Did Moses preach a different heart circumcision than Paul? Did he preach a different conversion to God? In Paul's words, absolutely not! Moses predicted a society marked by heart circumcision. Paul says that very prediction has been fulfilled (Col. 2:11-13) [Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, 231]

“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good? Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn (Deut. 10:12-16)

It seems a Particular Baptistic Covenant Theology radicalizes the concept of progressive revelation. In Reformed Covenant Theology, the historical covenants are progressive revelations of the one Covenant of Grace. In Nichols' version of Baptistic Covenant Theology, the historical covenants are progressive revelations towards the ultimate expression of the Covenant of Grace. In Reformed theology, each historical covenant do indeed partake of the Covenant of Grace, albeit in a veiled manner. In Nichols' Baptistic Covenant Theology, each progression towards the New Covenant share elements of the Covenant of Grace but each is substantively different from the mature New Covenant. While both hold to progressive revelation, both mean rather different things when they think of progression in God's revelation.

One particular aspect of Nichols' Baptistic Covenant Theology is the view that physical circumcision belongs to physical Israel, and anticipates the heart or spiritual circumcision that marks spiritual Israel, the New Covenant Church. In order for that to be true however, heart circumcision must be future-oriented under the Mosaic economy. It is of course true that Deuteronomy 30:6 shows heart circumcision to be in Israel's future, but is it not also to be a mark of Israel under the Mosaic economy?

Deuteronomy 10:12-16 expresses this command for the Israelites under Moses for their present time. They were to be circumcised in their hearts, which indicates a new disposition towards God, as opposed to being stubborn against Him. Not only were they to be circumcised physically of their foreskins, they were also to be circumcised in their hearts. Their physical circumcisions thus were to be signs of heart circumcisions. Those who have the sign of physical circumcision but not the reality of heart circumcision, as indicated by open rebellion against God and His commands, will to be cut off and excommunicated and exiled from the land (Num. 15:30).

Nichols thus err in locating heart circumcision as a New Covenant reality. In Reformed Covenant Theology, the Old Covenant sign was physical circumcision, signifying heart circumcision. The New Covenant sign is water baptism, signifying Spirit baptism. As Colossians 2:11-13 states, Old Covenant circumcision is replaced with New Covenant baptism. The parallel is not Old Covenant physical circumcision and New Covenant heart circumcision, but Old Covenant physical and heart circumcision, and New Covenant water and Spirit baptism.

The historical situatedness of Roman baptism

Are Roman Catholic baptisms valid? This question has been debated from the time of the Reformers till the modern day. Assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church, and the pope an antichrist who denies the Gospel, can we accept the Roman Catholic sacrament of baptism, which is not only corrupt because of Rome being a false church, but it is also corrupt because it is a magical ceremony working "grace" ex opere operato in the one being baptized?

Historically, those who fully reject Roman Catholic baptisms and all forms of pedobaptisms in the 16th century were the Anabaptists. Within Presbyterian and Reformed circles, the general consensus then was to accept Roman baptisms. In the 19th century however, a group led by Southern Presbyterian J.H. Thornwell took the position that Roman baptisms are invalid and should not be accepted. Opposing him was the giant Charles Hodge but to little avail as the General Assembly at that time ruled in Thornwell's favor. Of course, with the rot of Liberalism in the late 19th/ early 20th century, this ruling has been all but erased in the practice of the PCUSA. The key thing to note is that American Presbyterianism has at one time decided that Roman baptisms are invalid.

Much discussion about the validity or invalidity or Roman baptisms center over the criteria for valid baptisms, of which the major ones are (1) being done in the Triune name, (2) being done by a legitimately ordained minister, and (3) being done with water. Historical issues that have to be taken into account by those who claim to be part of the universal church are the Donatist controversy and the Reformers' rejection of the Anabaptist rejection of Roman baptisms. The Donatists linked the validity of one's baptisms to the holiness of the minister, thus if the pastor apostatized, all baptisms did under him became invalid. More pertinent to our issue, the Anabaptists called the Roman church a false church, and also rejected the doctrine of pedobaptism, and thus they reject Roman baptisms altogether. With such an eerie similarity, doesn't it seem that to reject Roman baptism is to follow in the footsteps of the Anabaptists, and thus be at variance with the Reformed tradition?

After giving much thought to the issue throughout the years, I think what is missing in this entire discussion on Roman baptism is to frame the discussion in its historical context. The unspoken assumption we make in our reasoning is to think that the process of us questioning the validity of Roman baptism today is the same process the Reformers took in questioning the validity of Roman baptism. That however is not the case, for such an assumption neglects the historical contexts of our time, and the Reformers' era.

The Reformers' context

The first assumption we have to discard is to think of the Medieval Catholic Church as being the Roman Catholic Church. That is not the case. Secondly, we have to understand that the Reformers saw the Medieval Catholic Church as corrupt yet still a church. To them it was the only church they knew, and none of them had the initial intent to set up an alternate church. Even after Trent, the Roman Church was seen as corrupt and unreformed, not another religion altogether.

Perhaps an analogy would help us see what the Reformers saw. Imagine you were brought up in a Christian family (if you weren't) and grew up in the same church with your parents and grandparents, and all your Christian friends. But when you grew up, one day the elders decided that salvation is by faith plus one's faithfulness (works) as a loyal church member (Federal Vision). Only you and a few others protested that this was contrary to Scripture, while most of your family members and friends are not so much against you as much as they couldn't see the difference between the true Gospel, and the new (Federal Vision) "gospel." Believing that this error struck at the heart of the Gospel, you and a few others separated to form a new church body. Now the question then arises: Is your former church a true church? Not if it continues to hold to the Federal Vision heresy. But assuming you had some theological training and over time was called to be the pastor of that new non-FV church, would you accept the baptisms done at your former church? Presumably, you would. Would you accept any baptisms done after the FV church officially revised their Confession of Faith to be in line with the Joint Federal Vision Profession? That sounds like a thorny proposition to consider, I would guess.

What this analogy hopes to show, absent any knee-jerk reactions to Roman Catholicism, is to illustrate how the Reformers would have felt towards the Medieval Catholic Church as it slowly jettissoned the Gospel. The Reformers were looking at their former church apostatized, which is not our experience towards Roman Catholicism at all. History and real-life is messy, and the analogy is meant to show the messiness of apostasy and how ecclesiastically dealing with such a separation is not an easy thing to do. This analogy is also meant to show us how it is natural for the Reformers to accept the Medieval Catholic baptisms of their time, for these baptisms were done by the Church, which was the only legitimate Church prior to the Reformers. In fact, it would be shocking if the Reformers did not accept the baptisms of the Medieval Catholic Church, for it would signal that the Medieval Catholic Church was not just corrupt, but fully a false religious institution akin to paganism.

Our modern context

Over time, the Reformed churches and Rome have diverged more and more. While certainly they are and always will be those in the Reformed tradition who want to go back to the 16th and 17th centuries, hopefully they will not be the future of the Reformed churches. Regardless, Rome has moved even further away from her Medieval Catholic roots into full-blown apostasy. Name any modern heresy, and chances are some Roman theologian or movement has toyed around with it sometime or another.

The list of heresies Rome has embraced or toyed with go way beyond the pale of anything resembling Christianity. With her inclusivism and elevation of Mary to unofficial semi-divine status, Rome should be seen as being another religion altogether.

As opposed to the Reformers, none of us, even converts from Rome, have seen Rome as a church that was once orthodox in their lifetime, or even their grandparents' lifetimes. Most modern Roman Catholics are not even devoted to the church with fides implicita as most Medievalists are. Many have no qualms trying out other religions and their practices, something that would horrify Medieval Catholics.

Summary

Judging by Rome's heresies, it should be a no-brainer why we should reject the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms today. We are after all dealing with another religion altogether, not a church that was once sound (unless one goes back 400+ years). And although there is surface similarity with the Anabaptists, the Anabaptists' reason for rejecting Medieval Catholic baptism, taking into account the historical context, was for the complete revolution of the Christian faith. Our reason for rejecting modern Roman Catholic baptisms however is not about revolutionizing the Christian faith, but about rejecting the magical ceremonies of a false religion.

Historically, therefore, we can agree with the Reformers on the validity of Medieval Catholic baptisms in their time, while rejecting the validity of Roman baptisms in the modern era. The Reformed churches have generally accepted Roman baptisms, but they should in my opinion rethink the issue afresh instead of defaulting to the historical position. That position was valid then, but it shouldn't be valid now. After all, I am writing this in the 21st century, almost five centuries from the start of the Reformation.

Baptism and Eschatology: Musings

In an interesting exchange I have had, the case for credobaptism was presented in terms of the redemptive historical paradigm of progressive revelation. In one line of argumentation, there is "this age," and there is "the age to come." The New Covenant belongs to the eschatological age, and since it is eschatological, the New Covenant continues to eternity. Infant baptism in this view belongs to this age, and thus should not be done under the New Covenant, since it does not continue to eternity. The Reformed view, according to this view, must believe that the New Covenant discontinues when Christ comes back, for after all those who enter heaven are those who believe in Christ. However, is such an argument sound?

First of all, it must be said that there are many things done in the New Covenant that will not continue to eternity. The special offices of the church will not be present in heaven, for there all will know the Lord (Jer. 31:34). There will therefore be no preaching, and there will be no Lord's Supper in heaven either. Why will we want to partake of the sign when the reality signified is present? Instead of the Supper, we will partake of the marriage supper of the Lamb, which probably does not consist of a small wafer and a small cup of wine. Therefore, the credobatist faces the same problem. Unless one wants to follow the Quakers, one cannot claim to be "thoroughly eschatological."

Secondly, this argument confuses the substance of the New Covenant with its administration. The substance of the New Covenant is the fullness of the Covenant of Grace, the revelation of the mystery once concealed. All of the Old Testament pointed to Christ and His work (Lk. 24:27), as a shadow to the brightness of the sun. The New Covenant will continue as to its substance, but its form and administration is adapted to the in-between times, the already and the not yet, since we are after all still living in this sinful world. The Eschaton will not usher in an even newer covenant, but rather will consummate the Covenant of Grace in the full redemption of His people.

One cannot claim the "newness" of the New Covenant as the automatic proof for credobaptism. Nobody disputes that the New Covenant is new. The question however is, "What is new about the New Covenant?" Just because the Old Covenant has certain practices does not mean that the New Covenant must necessarily change the practices done.

This line of argumentation therefore is not sound. While I respect my credobaptist brothers, they have to do better than this if they wish to convince us of their position.

Saints and Sinners Radio Podcast: Refutation of John MacArthur's case against Infant Baptism

I know this may be somewhat dated, but anyway here is an interesting refutation of John MacArthur's case against Infant Baptism by the Saints and Sinners radio show.

Warning: The episodes IMO are really polemical, especially the earlier ones.

Baptism and the Great Commission

The topic of Baptism and especially Infant Baptism is not an easy one to tackle, and thus I have not previously really mentioned much of it. Certainly, it is not one that can be addressed after reading one or two books on the topic, and I have always been extremely wary of those who after a few weeks have dogmatically made up their minds on the issue and attack the other side as being at best heterodox and at worst heretical (an action which shows the extreme naivete and profound ignorance of the person involved on this topic). The background for discussion of this topic requires a rather in-depth knowledge of Covenant Theology, and especially the relation between Salvation and entrance into the Covenant. This is especially so since Baptism is at least a sign of the Covenant, a position held to by both [Covenantal] Credobaptists and Paedobaptists.

That said, I think I have read and heard enough to make some informed critique regarding the topic, instead of merely previously saying that the points raised by others do not actually prove their position. I am aware though that it will be some time before I am able to formulate my viewpoint in a way that is satisfactory to me and which will sufficiently address the topic.

In this post therefore , I would address two passages which are used to prop up Credobaptism: Mt. 28:18-20 and Acts 2:39-39.

In Fred Malone's book The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2nd. Ed. 2007), Malone in Appendix E on pages 242-243 refers to the Great Commission text (which he has done so previously in the main body of his book i.e. p. 41). In his view as articulated previously in page 41, the Great Commission states that we are first to make disciples, and then to baptize these disciples, and therefore the Great Commission teaches Believers' Baptism.

In pages 242-243, Malone returns to this passage in this review of the book The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism compiled and edited by Gregg Strawbridge. In chapter 3 of that book, Joe Beeke and Ray Lanning were stated to have said that ""repent and be baptized" are coordinate commands, not indicating temporal order (p. 60)" (cited in p. 242). Malone countered that "the coordinate conjunction does not negate the temporal argument that repentance should precede baptism". (p. 243) To prove his case, Malone cites passages such as Jn. 4:1-2 where repentance is stated to have clearly preceded baptism.

The problem however with Malone's attempted rebuttal is that he has unwittingly committed eisegesis at this point. Beeke and Lanning's contention that the twin commands of repentance and baptism are coordinate commands not indicating temporal order fits the immediate context very well. Malone in appealing to passages such as Jn. 4:1-2 cites passages outside the immediate context of Mt. 28:18-20. The immediate context says nothing about temporal order within the twin commands of repentance and baptism. It just states that we are to call all men to both (1) repent, and (2) to be baptized. Mt. 28:18-20 therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of Infant Baptism, and Malone in this instance is reading into the text here.

The other passage is the famous text in Peter's sermon in Acts 2:38-39, which is as follows:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39)

Malone interprets the passage as saying that the phrase "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" is the condition circumscribing the entire promise; the "ultimate condition of the reception of the promise; the effectual calling of God, not parental connection" (p. 129). Therefore, while the promise is "for you and to your children and for all who are far off", all these groups are limited by the condition of election in the later part of verse 39. Therefore, the promise is not an "indiscriminate assurance" of promise, but rather this ""promise" is given only to those "of faith" "(p. 128), citing Gal. 3:22 to this effect.

This argument seems to be a staple in Covenantal Credobaptist argumentation, seeing as it is used by Dr. James White in his baptism debate with Dr. Bob Shishko (a debate which can be bought from the Aomin website) and also by Alan Conner in his book Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual? (Owensboro, KY: RBAP), p. 75. It sounds rather reasonable, until you examine it in detail.

The first problem with this interpretation is the use of Gal. 3:22 to interpret Acts 2:38-39. The book of Galatians was written for a particular reason for the proclamation of the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone apart from any form of works and sacraments. The Law/Gospel antithesis is at the forefront of Pauline thought in the entire epistle to the Galatians, and it is this that the book is focused on. To use any part of this book therefore to interpret other parts like Acts 2 where the context is different is to commit eisegesis. The fallacy that Malone makes is to assume that the concept of "promise" in Gal. 3:22 is the same as the concept of "promise" in Acts 2:39. In order to do that, he must depend on a certain Baptistic view of relation between salvation and covenant, a view which he does not so much defend as assume. (Which is why as I have said the topic requires one to really understand Covenant Theology!)

The second problem with the Credobaptist position can be illustrated by the diagram as follows:

The Credobaptist position it seems seek to make the phrase "Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" a condition circumscribing who the promise is made to, even bringing the concept of election into the picture. The first problem however for such an interpretation is that the very concept of election is not found in the text. The Apostle Peter was giving a Gospel message and a Gospel call; an offer of the Gospel, and no mention of election was even mentioned at all apart from this contested verse, so why would we think that Peter was talking about election in the middle of this Gospel call?

If we were to read the verse in context however, we can see that Peter's Gospel message was portrayed as a fulfilment of the prophecies to Israel. Citing Joel 2 and stating that these prophecies were being fulfilled in these last days, the idea of fulfilment of the promises made to Israel is prevalent throughout the message. Such fulfilment of Messianic prophecies would bring to mind passages such as Is. 54 especially verses 1-3, Mal. 1:11, Is. 19:16-24 among others, where the promise that all peoples would come to know God is made.

It is in such a context that the promise of Acts 2:38-39 is given. The promise seems to be moving outwards, from (1) you, to (2) your children, and to (3) all who are far off. The logical flow therefore is to see that the phrase "all whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" is the fourth sphere of promise, covering all and everyone on this earth as an expression of the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies. Instead of being a [limiting] phrase about election, the phrase is an expansion phrase, bringing about the promise of the Gospel message as a universal offer of salvation to all men without distinction.

The question that may arise from this interpretation then concerns the struggle Peter, the Apostolic and the early church had with the problem of Gentile converts. Why did Peter struggle with the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to Christianity? Why was the Jerusalem council needed, and the Epistle to the Galatians also, not to mention the epistle to the Hebrews? The problems and struggles as one sees through the lens of Messianic prophecies came about not because Gentiles were not included in the Messianic prophecies, but rather because the Gospel message moves beyond the sphere of Judaism in demolishing ethno-religo boundaries. Peter and the Apostolic Church probably have the concept in mind that Gentiles in order to become Christians (who were after all the true Jews in their minds and in fact) must become Jews first through proselyte baptism. The shock Peter had in the case of Cornelius was that God accepted Cornelius and his household as Gentile converts and not that they were to become [Messianic] Jews. In moving beyond the ethno-religious boundaries of Judaism, the Holy Spirit led them to see that the Gospel message was not about making Jews of all nations [albeit "Messianic Jews"], but of making Christians of all nations. The New Covenant rightly speaking is new with respects to the time-bound Mosaic Covenant, and thus not limited to the people of physical Israel. Rather, it is a fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant with its blessing to all peoples (Gen. 12:1-3), a fact mentioned in Gal. 3:16-18.

In conclusion, we have looked and see that these two passages, Mt. 28:18-20 and Acts 2:38-39, do not in fact promote the Credobaptist position. Rather, when properly interpreted, they are either neutral to it (the former), or decidedly against it (the latter). Acts 2:38-39 continues to be a strong proof-text for the paedobaptist position, and also in fact a good text for the universal offer of the Gospel.

Some thoughts on Infant Baptism

I was recommended this book some time ago by Vincent as being one of the better books by a Credobaptist defending Credobaptism from the viewpoint of Covenantal Theology. There are many many books to be read, so I would always love to read the best on the subject so as to encounter the best arguments for or against whatever position they are arguing for. I have therefore recently gotten myself a copy of the book and have read the book. Here is a short review of the book (as for a comprehensive review I might as well just write a book on the topic, which I have no interest in as of now):

As a Pedobaptist, I must say that I am impressed with Dr. Jewett's work on this subject. Though his Baptist bias shines through the work at various places, and there are some of the typical Baptist errors in argumentation throughout (ie attempting to find evidence for infant baptism instead of looking at it correctly from the direction of Infant inclusion in the Covenant), the work as a whole attempts to analyze the subject of Infant Baptism in a holistic manner. I must say that if your view of Pedobaptism cannot pass the muster of Jewett's work in a consistent biblical manner, it is not worth holding onto.

I have read about both Schreiner's and Malone's works promoting and defending Credobaptism, which I will get in the future. Obviously, I have my own thinking on the subject, but I am open to any arguments from Scripture that does successfully disprove my view, but I haven't seen any yet, though Jewett's work does come close at certain points.

P.S.: Just in case you are wondering, my view is not one of the Reformed views critiqued by Jewett. My current opinion on this topic as it works out in the practical arena lies somewhat along the reasoning similar to the ones I have advanced against Neo-Amyraldism in terms of federal/corporate collective-ness versus individuality.

P.P.S.: For the reading comprehension-impaired, this post does not state anything with regards to pedobaptism or credobaptism, except my opinion of Jewett's book. Contrary to the view of my critics, not everything that I post is prophetic (as in forthtelling prophecy). Lighten up!

Reply to Wenxian on the orthodox & reformed doctrine of Infant Baptism (part 2)

[Continuing on with my rebuttal of Wenxian's post.]

3. Roman Catholicism is linked to protestants by the ritual with the same name. This is obvious. Insomuch as we explain ourselves to be different, to new believers, it does not seem so.

And the point is? I can just as easily point out the fact that Roman Catholicism practise adult baptism, and what does that prove? Certain charismatic word-faith churches practise believers' baptism only (In fact, most if not all charismatic and pentecostal churches do that), so does this prove that Baptist churches are therefore indistinguishable from the charismatic word-faith churches, since they are linked by the same practice with the same name? Of course not!

The fruits are also very much the same: a church filled to the brim with unbelievers, although we should not see things for the fruit alone.

Proof? The fact of the matter is that historically, historic Reformed churches in general fare rather well in terms of keeping the faith, at least no worse than baptist churches. Guess which denomination Rick Warren is from? The Southern Baptist Convention, which believes in believers' baptism only. Thus, this statement is manifestly not true.

A road back to rome...

Baptists are also involved in the ecumenical movement, of which the most prominent is Rick Warren.

4. Infant baptism provides false security to young believers and to their parents.

... who do not know what infant baptism is about! And if they are not taught, people who profess to be believers and are baptized as adults could also have a sense of false security with regards to their salvation. This is not limited to infant baptism alone!

Hence many, confused by the evil one or by other means, will take tha [sic the] baptism of the infant as the real thing: they will assume the child is saved and will be lax with their teachings with the child - after all, who is gonna render the child unsaved when the child is already baptised and 'saved'?

Similarly, how many people in nominal baptists churches are assured by the pastor that they are saved because they have at one time or another said the 'Sinner's prayer' (i.e. Decisional regeneration)? How many people who have only made a 'decision for Christ' in a baptist church continue to live in sin, because they believe in a twisted form of 'Once saved, always saved', and thus they can sin as much as they like since they are saved no matter what happens? False assurance of salvation and misunderstanding of doctrine does not only happens in paedobaptist churches; it is common to both!

But my point of contention is: why create an opportunity to create confusion? Why make understanding for the lay masses so much more difficult with all the convental (sic) theology and the far-fetched convenant (sic) of grace?

The doctrine of the Trinity could be said to similarly be 'an opportunity to create confusion', since it is not easy to understand. A Jehovah Witness could use this same form of reasoning against it, so this form of reasoning is moot. As I have said, it would be better to read up more before comments are made about concepts which are hardly grasped (covenental theology and the convenent of grace).

The method of inferrence for infant baptism, is most contradictory with sola scriptura. This is leaning closely to hypocrisy, because some are reformed but in this case they seem to ignore the principle of scripture only.

This is a serious charge, and I challenge you, Wenxian, and anyone for that matter to substantiate it. This only shows the ignorance of the person making the charge to anyone who reads this. Does anyone really wants to make the charge that the Reformers who loudly proclaim Sola Scriptura do not see this 'contradiction' with their doctrine of infant baptism? Who dares claim to be smarter than the Westminster divines, the multitude of Reformed pastors, evangelists and theologians of the Reformation and Puritan ages? If so, prove it! Even Baptist scholars worth their salt do not make this sort of charge against us! They may disagree with us, but nobody would say that we violate the principle of Sola Scriptura, for the simple reason that we derive the doctrine of Infant baptism from Scripture! Whether Infant baptism is implied in Scriptures is disputed between historic Reformed and Baptists, but the fact of the matter is that we believe and can show proof from Scripture for the doctrine of Infant baptism, and as such it is not a denial of Sola Scriptura (which includes all implications from Scripture as well). I have shown this in my previous refutations of the 'evidences' presented that infant baptism is not ruled out from consideration of these passages and the doctrine could in fact be probably derived from some of those scriptures quoted, so the Credo-/Paedo-baptist issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura.

Now, after showing forth the fallacious reasoning in these so-called evidences, some people may noticed that I have not as yet proven the doctrine of Infant baptism from the Scriptures. Yes, I have not done so, and that was not my intention. What I have intended to show is that these so-called evidences cannot be taken to prove or disprove infant baptism or credobaptism. The credo-baptist may be correct, and we wrong, but the proof must lie elsewhere, not in this type of superficial reading of the Scripture and fallacious reasoning. This is why I would ask people who are interested on the topic to read and think more before coming to their own position on the issue, and to think about the relation between the Old and New Covenents. Dr. James R. White, himself a Reformed Baptist, is moving in the correct direction when he defends his baptist position by looking at the relation between the Old and New Covenant. Whether he is right or not remains to be seen, but the fact of the matter is that his position at least engages the position correctly, unlike this type of superficial reasoning which has been refuted here.

P.S.: Since Wenxian came out from Anglicanism, I can probably understand a bit where he comes from, and thus his desire for a pure church is a mitigating factor in his case. But doctrine must be derived from the Scriptures, not from our personal preferences or previous church experiences.

PPS.: For especially Wenxian's benefit, and also since he does not allow comments on his blog on the topic anymore, the person whose website he learns the regulative principle of worship from, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, is a former Reformed Baptist turned Presbyterian. Here is a page from his website on the topic of infant baptism. Also, looking at his last comment in reply to Vincent here, I would really ask him to exhibit more humility and stop acting so ... , for lack of a better term, juvenile. Stop condemning your borthers in Christ, for a start, by using less polemics and addressing the issue proper.

Reply to Wenxian on the orthodox & reformed doctrine of Infant Baptism (part 1)

OK, this is not what I particularly want to do, but after talking to my brother Wenxian over the phone on the subject of credo- vs paedobaptism for more than one hour, and then reading his recent post on this topic, I feel I need to offer a rebuttal to his post on the subject. As I have mentioned before to him, I am not an expert on this doctrine, and I am personally amiacable to (Particular) Baptists and their distinctive doctrines. Not speaking for all or any other historic Reformed folks out there (as distinct from Reformed Baptist), but I am willing to let Christians hold on to their different views on this topic since in my opinion it is not that vital (as opposed to doctrines such as Calvinism). However, one thing which I do not like is straw man argumentation and the committing of various logical fallacies in argument. That is why I would and have advise anyone who wants to study the subject to read more into the subject, and form your own conclusion slowly and carefully. Also, since this is not that vital a doctrine, using polemics against the other party is NEITHER needed nor warrented, and whoever does so is inviting trouble; and I will make sure they will get the trouble they ask for.

In this and subsequent posts, therefore, I would analyze Wenxian's arguments against Infant Baptism and test them for logical consistency and Scriptural backing.

The first argument given against Infant Baptism is given as:

1) There is no real clear biblical command for infant baptism. This alone is sufficient.

This commits the logical fallacy of argument from silence. Just because there isn't an explicit command for Infant baptism doesn't imply that Infant Baptism is wrong. True, we need to follow Scripture and Scripture alone, but then Scripture alone includes not only the explicit commands of Scripture, but also the implicit commands of Scripture, and furthermore the application of Scripture. To see why this argument is fallacious, let's substitute the term 'infant baptism' for something else, like ... immersion only baptism, which is what Baptists practice. Show me one verse in Scripture whereby Jesus or the Apostles explicitly commands that baptism must be done only via immersion. You can't! It is the most implied in Scripture, not explicitly commanded.

As an aside, there is an assumption in this argument that baptism and infant baptism are two seperate distinct things, instead of them being overlapping entities. Infant baptism could very well be spoken of in the NT as being under the subset of baptism, and thus to infer from the fact that just because infant baptism is not mentioned specifically in the NT so it is not done nor commanded is fallacious.

While there are examples of households being baptised, there was no effort made to show that the households contain infants.

Judging by the prevalent Roman, Greek and Jewish cultures of that time, such information would definitely not be given unless there is something special about the infants. In fact, why should the infants be mentioned since they are not someone special and just part of the household, if there were any? This thus commits another fallacy of argument from silence. In fact, the texts indicating that entire households are baptized could be used as a strong text to support infant baptism, since in those ancient cultures, how many people are there who practise birth control methods etc during that time? Probably none, in fact! Most families then would have lots of children of various ages, and to suppose that they just decided to stop having children after a certain age is rather far-fetched.

With regards to the household issue, perhaps it would be good to look also at Acts. 2:39 where it is specifically stated that the promise is to ... the children of believers! Yes, it is stated after that that the promise it is to everyone to whom the Lord calls to Himself, but why the assumption that the children of believers are among those to whom the Lord does not call to Himself?

Faith marked the entry into the salvic (sic Salvific) promise in [the] OT.

No. Faith does not 'mark' the entry into the salvific promise in the OT. Faith is the pre-requisite, but it since it is unseen, it does not visibly mark the entry into the salvific promises. The visible mark of entry into the promises of the OT which are fulfiled in Jesus Christ is via circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14), since the promise was made to Israel as the visible Church of the OT. Of couse, only those of the elect in Israel would appropriate the promises by faith, but such faith is not exactly visible except in the obvious cases of certain people like the prophets and judges, and this we know through Scripture only. Just because one shows forth external piety does not show one is truly saved, just like the Pharisees and the Sadducees whom Jesus condemned (Lk. 11:39-52).

But now for paedobaptism, where is the command? Should not God make it clear if he wants us to do it? God is not stupid. If he wants something done, he will state it clearly so that we will have no excuse. The converse is true.

And who defines what is clear and what is not? If the command is in the OT, and the New Covenant does not abrogate the Old but instead it shows forth the true meaning of it, then the command is stil valid in some form. If one assumes the continuity of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old and New Covenants (which I do), then there will be some implications on whether something stated in the OT continues on in some fashion in the New Dispensation of Grace. Yes, if God commands us to do something, it will be clear. However, just because you can't discern something does not mean that thing is NOT clear! To object to infant baptism because you can't see it being commanded in Scripture has the same apologetic value as the Jehovah Witness who objects to the eternal sonship and deity of Jesus Christ because he can't see it stated in Scripture.

in absense of the biblical warrant, we are in danger of instilling a human tradition and forcing people to do it.

As I have said, just because it is not stated explicitly does not imply that it is not stated in Scripture implicitly.

As mentioned by some of [m]y friends, they claim that paedobaptism is a liberty issue

Wenxian got that from me, or rather it was supposed to be from me, but no, this is NOT what I said. I said that I regard paedobaptism as an issue over which individual Christians should be allowed to have liberty to embrace or not (without using the H-word). It is not something which is on the level of eating meat or esteeming certain days etc (Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8), but is regarding doctrine, and a rather important one at that. Due to the complexity of the issue, and the fact that it is important but not vital, individual Christians in my opinion should be allowed to have the liberty to decide which position they would like to embrace.

But the problem lies that since there is NO biblical warrant, they would be guilty of a great sin if they, in the name of Christ, were to force people to do things that God himself did not command. For they would be breaking the command in Exodus 20:7 when they misuse the Lord's name. In fact they are in danger of making God out to be a liar.

I believe that there is biblical warrant for infant baptism. Anyway, what I would like to focus on here is the polemics which is used against us historic Reformed folks. As one of them myself, I find this type of polemical statements offensive and definitely not warranted, since this issue is NOT relating to heresies etc. There is a place for everything, including polemics and rhetoric, but one place where they shoudn't show up is in disagreements among brethren when the issue involved is not a soul-endangering one.

2. Infant baptism confuses the real church and the unsaved. Infant baptism is a confusing concept that seems to 'come into effect when a child confesses his faith'. This brings out many controversies. Firstly, at what age? who defines the age that makes the 'confession of faith' real and valid? Could the child be confused?

It 'does not come into effect when a child confesses his faith'! I said that it is validated as a true baptism when the child confesses his faith. With regards to the age issue, this is not something which is specific for paedobaptists. May I counter-question the credo-baptists: at what age can the child be considered suitable for adult baptism? Could the person be confused? Do you think certain baptist churches in the US who conduct children evangelism are correct? If these children confess Christ at such an evangelistic meeting, since they are supposed to be believers then (as they were not Christians beforehand), should they be admitted for believers' baptism? Think before you answer.

For credobaptism, the opposite of paedobaptism, God did define it. He defined in NT, unarguably, ALL baptism to be of people who confess faith, repent and believe. Age and sex no longer matter.

Just for the record, credobaptism is NOT the opposite of paedobaptism! We historic Reformed folks DO baptize adults on the same basis as credo-baptists do! And sorry, I disagree with the statement that all baptism in the NT is to be of people who confess faith, repent and believe. This commits the logical fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question, in which the conclusion is smuggled into the premises. There is NO passages in Scripture whereby baptism is said to be ONLY for those who can willingly confess their faith! Showing passages of people being baptized who do so does not prove that baptism is exclusively for those who do so. (i.e. 'If p, then q' does not imply that 'If not p, then not q'!)

What happens is that paedobaptism will create a church with many unbelievers who are baptised. This makes the baptism to NONbelievers less important that it should be, no matter how much we explain to them.

There are unbelievers in all churches! Jesus Himself said that in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13:24-30), and only at the Final Judgment would they be totally seperated. Is there any church anywhere who can claim that their membership is 100% regenerate? No! Even the most stringent criteria for membership does not preclude that heretics would arise from within the flock (Acts. 20:30), which occur even during the Apostolic Age. What makes anyone so sure that their membership criteria would weed out all the non-believers? How can anyone know the heart of any person to see whether that person is truly regenerate or not? We can only see the external; whether the person professes true doctrine and behave accordingly, but we can never know the heart. If there be a membership criteria which is able to remove the true unregenerate from the church, is is bound to create lots of false negatives (i.e. true believers who are shifted out using those same criteria - c.f.Mt. 13:29), which God forbids (Mt. 13:30)! Yes, we try to screen people so that only regenerate Christians are inside, and we throw out heretics who deny the faith, but that does not imply that we are to do more than Scripture allows us to, and attempting to read the heart of the person whom we are considering for membership is one of such practices which add to God's Word and in fact violates it (Ps. 44:21; Jer. 17:9).

That being said, do any Baptist churches dare to likewise proclaim that their membership is 100% regenerate, since they only baptize those who make a valid confession of faith and live according to it? I would hope not! In fact, one just has to look down church history to see that Baptist churches have apostasized before. How can that be if Baptist churches have 100% regenerate membership? Oviously, Baptist churches try to have 100% regenerate membership, and try to make sure that the people joining them are truly regenerate, but this process was and will never be foolproof.

Since such is the case, this objection to paedobaptism by saying that it would be filled with unbelievers is false. This could occur with Baptist churches as well! If one says that paedobaptism would give rise to a higher probability for the church to be filled with unbelievers, then that would be more valid. This obviously has happened to Presbyterian and Reformed churches before, where there is laziness in enforcing proper procedure and church discipline for children born to believers who are actually not born again. However, this problem is not unique to paedobaptist churches. Aren't Baptist churches also susceptible to the problem of a formerly admitted member who later apostasized? And how many Baptist churches actually practice church discipline against recalcitrant sinning members? And do Baptist churches sometimes practice more leniency when examining the membership application of the children of members, and especially the pastor's children? I rest my case.

The Lord does not want to do a repeat of Israel, where many were circumcised but many turn away.

Wrong. Verses to support your stand please.

If the Lord wanted a repeat, there would be no need for the NT baptism. The Lord does not 'change' terms for fun.

This is a misunderstanding of the relation between the Old and New Testament, and the Old and New Covenant. The changing of the terms is not because the Lord wanted to somehow make a church whereby all members in it are regenerate, but because the Old Covenant was in types and shadows, whereas all is clear in the New Covenant, therein the changes.

[to be continued]

(Note: All comments are to be posted on the second and concluding post)