Infant Baptism: New Wine in Old Wineskins?

I am a Baptist, (namely, a Reformed Baptist),[1] not because I was raised to be so, nor because I’ve neglected to study the theological issues that divide Baptists and those of other denominations.  No, I am a Reformed Baptist by conviction.  That means, I’ve studied the issues and can confidently say that I am convinced of what I have believed as being thoroughly biblical.  And while I have the highest respect for my Paedobaptist brethren, especially those of the Presbyterian denomination, I cannot bring myself to accept the practice of infant baptism as an apostolic, biblical teaching/practice.  It is, to paraphrase the words of Christ, pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mtt. 9:17).  Alan Conner, in his book, Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?, notes this as a crucial point in the debate over infant baptism and covenant membership.

Covenant Membership the Key Issue

The general view set forth in these Confessions [i.e Heidelberg Catechism; Second Helvetic Confession; Westminster Confession of Faith] is that the infants of believers are in the New Covenant, are members of the church, and therefore, should be baptized.  If this principle of infant membership is found in the New Covenant, then infant baptism has a strong ally.  But, if the New Covenant presents a different principle of membership, one based on personal faith in Christ and actually possessing the blessings of the New Covenant, then infant baptism comes up against a powerful foe.  Without the principle of infant membership, the view of infant baptism expressed in the Confessions above would suffer a major and perhaps irrecoverable blow.

New Wine in Old Wineskins?

Credobaptists believe that baptizing infants based on the principle of membership in the Old Covenant is similar to the faulty practice of trying to ‘pour new wine into old wineskins.’  The concept of membership in the New Covenant cannot be poured back into the old worn out wineskins of the Old Covenant.  We believe that those who practice infant baptism do not take seriously enough that the New Covenant is, in fact, a ‘New’ Covenant, not like the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32).  We affirm that there are important elements of both continuity and discontinuity [added emphasis] between the Old and New Covenants.  Yet, the practice of infant baptism is based upon a mistaken view of continuity in the area of covenant membership.

We also believe that the principle of membership taught in the New Covenant is at the heart of its essential ‘newnewss.’  No longer is membership in the New Covenant defined by the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant.  For, as Paul taught, ‘be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham’ (Galatians 3:7) and ‘it is not the children of flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants’ (Romans 9:8).  These ‘children of promise’ are determined not by physical lineage, but by the sovereign choice of God who chooses Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13).  The New Covenant ‘children of God’ are not those ‘born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:12-13).  Thus, Old Covenant membership was based on physical birth, whereas in the New Covenant it is based exclusively on spiritual birth from above (John 3:3,5).

If these convictions are true to the teachings of the Bible, then membership in the New Covenant is restricted to those who have faith, and they alone should receive the covenant sign of baptism.  This is a clear departure from membership in the Old Covenant, but it is one made necessary by the fact that new wine requires new wineskins.

The rest of Conner’s book is essentially an argument or justification for the above quote.  Throughout, he demonstrates the clear biblical shift from an emphasis on the physical principle, characteristic of the Old Covenant, to the spiritual principle, characteristic of the New Covenant.  This is a book that every Reformed Baptist should read.  Of course, I do believe that paedobaptists should take the time to read such books as well, so as to better understand the Reformed Baptist position and conviction.

Happy reading…

 

[1] I do not mean merely a Calvinistic Baptist (i.e. a Baptist who’s “Reformed” convictions extends no further than the Doctrines of Grace).  I know that there are those who would say that Baptists can’t truly be Reformed or Covenantal, because we don’t practice infant baptism.  To that I reply, why do you have such a small view of Reformed/Covenantal theology?  Infant baptism, as important as it may be in paedobaptist Covenant Theology, is not the be-all-end-all of the Reformed faith.  What is more, this often comes from the lips of one who knows little to nothing of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, and the various arguments that exist for it.

Berkhof on “The Necessity of the Sacraments”

It is not often thought, among Protestants, that the sacraments or ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are necessary.  This, however, is understandable, as the necessity of the sacraments is often thought of strictly in the sense or context of the means by which one is saved.  Yet, we would be wrong to think of the necessity of the sacraments in this strict manner.  With that being said, let me now quote Louis Berkhof on this very issue:

Roman Catholics hold that baptism is absolutely necessary for all unto salvation, and that the sacrament of penance is equally necessary for those who have committed mortal sins after baptism; but that confirmation, the eucharist, and extreme unction are necessary only in the sense that they have been commanded and are eminently helpful.  Protestants, on the other hand, teach that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary unto salvation, but are obligatory in view of the divine precept [Hence, Baptists typically refer to the sacraments as ordinances].  Wilful neglect of their use results in spiritual impoverishment and has a destructive tendency, just as all wilful and persistent disobedience to God has.  That they are not absolutely necessary unto salvation, follows: (1) from the free spiritual character of the gospel dispensation, in which God does not bind His grace to the use of certain external forms, John 4:21,23; Luke 18:14; (2) from the fact that Scripture mentions only faith as the instrumental condition [or cause] of salvation, John 5:24; 6:29; 3:36; Acts 16:31; (3) from the fact that the sacraments do not originate faith but presuppose it, and are administered where faith is assumed, Acts 2:41 [see also 10:42-48]; 16:14,15,30,33; 1 Cor. 11:23-32; and (4) from the fact that many were actually saved without the use of the sacraments.  Think of the believers before the time of Abraham and of the penitent thief on the cross. [Systematic Theology, (1941). 618-619.]

The only thing I would add to Berkhof’s comment, which is certainly implied within, is that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and therefore serves as the rite by which one enters into the communion of the Church (e.g. Acts 2:41-42).  The same is true of the Lord’s Supper, representing continual communion/fellowship with Christ and His Church (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:24-26).  In other words, those who profess faith in the word of Christ (the gospel), yet refuse baptism and continually neglect the Lord’s Supper, demonstrate a serious inconsistency with their profession, and are actually distancing themselves from, rather than identifying with, Christ and His Church.

The Nature of the Church & Baptism

The following is a quote from Our Baptist Heritage: Issues Facing Reformed Baptists Today (Reformation Today Trust, 1993) on baptism in relation to the nature of the Church:

The basic issue in the subject of baptism is the nature of Church.  Zwingli sought to persuade Blaurock of the validity of infant baptism on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision.  Baptists, while accepting the doctrine of the covenants (see the 1689 Confession, chapter 7), regard circumcision as symbolic of the need of regeneration.  They hold that only those who have a credible profession of faith fulfil the terms of the new covenant.  Only those who have the evidence of a new heart and a new spirit qualify for baptism and church membership.  Baptists stress both the unity and discontinuity of the covenant administration.  They point out that the Scriptures emphasise that the new covenant is different in that it is not national; all without exception are included [in the national model].  ‘It will not be like the covenant I made with their fore-fathers’ (Heb 8:9).  Rather the new covenant includes only those who know the Lord, ‘They will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.  For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more’ (Heb 8:12). [p. 17]

This, in a nutshell, is the Reformed Baptist perspective and argument.  Perhaps its greatest strength is that it embraces the unity or continuity of the covenants, unlike that of Dispensationalism, while at the same time seeking to understand the New Covenant on its own clearly defined terms (the aspects of discontinuity).  For a fuller expression of this argument for believer’s baptism (credo-baptism), please see A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church.

Audio: Baptism Debate (White vs. Shishko)

James White and Bill Shishko engage in a very important debate on who are the proper recipients of baptism.  White takes the position that repentance and faith is a necessary prerequisite for all who receive baptism (credobaptism).  Shishko takes the position that children of believing parents are to receive baptism (paedobaptism).  James White emphasizes the need to be consistent in one’s hermeneutic procedure, and I believe he demonstrates such consistency in this debate (you be the judge).  Although Shishko emphaszied the concept of household baptism, White demonstrates, without question, that those who were baptized in the “household passages” actually repented and believed. [Source: reformedman YouTube channel]

Part One:

Part Two:

Audio: Baptism Debate (Schreiner vs. VanDrunen)

Presbyterians and Baptists (namely Reformed Baptists) have much in common.  Still, the places where we differ are important, and we must engage in discussion and debate about those differences.  Baptism, namely its recipients, is an important area of disagreement.  In this debate, Thomas Schreiner (credobaptism) and David VanDrunen (paedobaptism) present their case for their respective positions, followed by questioning and rebuttal.  I make this debate available here because I find it to be a good representation of these two views.  Albeit, one should consider multiple voices and books when it comes to this issue.  While I side with Schreiner on this issue (i.e. only those who repent and believe the gospel are to receive baptism), I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he says, or every point of articulation.  Nevertheless, I believe he presents a strong case.

I would like to point the listener to a major problem I find with the paedobaptism position, which I think comes out very clearly in VanDrunen’s argumentation.  One of the major contentions I have with the paedobaptist position is that they cannot interpret the New Covenant on its own terms.  They, as VanDrunen demonstrates in this debate, continually seek to understand the New Covenant on the terms of the Old Covenant.  However, the terms of the New Covenant are clearly different in some respects (see Jer. 31:31-34; i.e. “new;” “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers;” “no longer;” “for they shall all know me”).  While continuity certainly exists between the covenants, there is also significant discontinuity, which paedobaptists tend to ignore, fail to realize, or minimize.  For those of you who wish to dig deeper into the Baptist (credobaptist) position, I recommend you read Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?, by Alan Conner.

Part One:

Part Two:

Resources: Credo-Baptism Only

While Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians have much in common, one of the major theological issues that separates them is the subject of baptism.  Should children of believers be baptized?  Baptists (credo-baptism), of course, say “No.”  Presbyterians (paedo-baptism), on the other hand, say “Yes.”  In my own discussion with Presbyterians on this issue I have noticed that many are unaware of the Reformed Baptist argumentation (just as many Baptists are unaware of the Presbyterian argumentation).  Contrary to the Dispensational Baptist argumentation, we Reformed (Covenantal) Baptists do not limit our argumentation to the New Testament, nor do we respond, like the Dispensationalists do, with a rigid discontinuity of Israel and the Church.  In other words, we sympathize with the Presbyterians’ desire to look at the continuity of the Old and New Testaments (or Covenants) to gather understanding of this issue.  While we agree with them on much of the continuity of the Testaments, we believe they fail to recognize very important discontinuities, and therefore they see a necessary progressive equality between circumcision of the Old Covenant and baptism of the New Covenant.  My point here is not to go into the details and try to make a case for credo-baptism only, but to simply point you to a few resources that I have found very beneficial in my own studies.  I do believe that if Presbyterians took it upon themselves to read these books many would be quite surprised at the biblical-theological argumentation and start to recognize that Baptists (at least Reformed Baptists) stand on their convictions with solid exegetical grounding against the paedo-baptist arguments.  That being said, I make these resources available primarily for my fellow credo-baptist brothers.

I might add that I actually performed an in-depth study of the paedo-baptism arguments shortly before my son was born.  I had never really considered their view from a biblical-theological perspective and decided to take it upon myself to find out.  I wanted to be absolutely settled in my position when my son was born.  During this time of study I actually came very close to becoming a Presbyterian and actually considered myself to be so for a short period of time.  However, as I continued to study and think through some major points and terminology, I had to return to the credo-baptist position.  I don’t say this as if it strengthens the credo-baptism perspective, for such testimonies exist on both sides.  Rather, I simply make it known so that you, the reader, know that I have taken the time to study the paedo-baptist arguments.  In other words, I am a credo-baptist by biblical-theological convictions, not simply by tradition or happenstance.

1. A Reformed Baptist Manifesto.  (by Sam Waldron, with Richard Barcellos) This book focuses on the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) as the so-called Constitution of the Church.  Chapter 4 is dedicated to a biblical critique of infant-baptism (paedo-baptism).

2. Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual. (by Alan Conner) This book goes into more detail than the former, and provides a wonderful biblical and theological assessment of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and how that plays out in the area of baptism.

3. From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism. (by Gary Crampton)  “Following the Westminster Confession’s definition of baptism, Gary Crampton presents a compelling argument for credobaptism versus paedobaptism. He examines each phrase of this definition as the outline of his work, finding that neither Scripture, the Apostolic Fathers, the Church Fathers, nor many modern paedobaptists support the definition in favor of infant baptism. His work is thorough in its research, broad in its survey, forceful in its irenic argument, and very readable for all. It betrays Dr. Crampton’s own wrestling with the Scriptures, historical theology, and his own personal convictions as a former paedobaptist to become a convinced and biblical Baptist.” – Fred A. Malone

Four Elements of A Sacrament/Ordinance

Although James Montgomery Boice was a Presbyterian minister, there is yet much that we Baptists and our Presbyterian brothers have in common.  Far too often we tend to speak only of the differences that exist between us (e.g. the recipients of baptism; church polity).  In this post we will see Boice’s explanation of the four elements of a sacrament/ordinance.[1]  I believe Baptists may whole-heartedly give an “Amen!” to Boice’s understanding of these elements.[2]

Four Elements of a Sacrament
In what way do the Scriptures represent the sacraments of the church as being different from other practices, such as the reading of Scripture or prayers, which are not sacramental?  What constitutes a sacrament?  There are four elements.

1. The sacraments are divine ordinances instituted by Christ himself….  The sacraments are mandatory.  The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed.  Baptism was instituted shortly before his ascension into heaven.

2. The sacraments are ordinances in which material elements are used as visible signs of God’s blessing.  In baptism the sign is water.  In the Lord’s Supper two signs are used: bread, which signified the broken body of the Lord Jesus Christ, and wine, which signified his shed blood.

This feature is important in understanding the nature of a sacrament.  It sets baptism and the Lord’s Supper off from other proper but nonsacramental things, which do not use a material element as a sign.  The material element distinguishes the sacrament from the reality that it signifies.  A sign is a visible object that points to a reality different from and more significant than itself….  The sacrament of baptism points to our identification with Christ by faith.  The Lord’s Supper points to the reality of our communion with him.  In the case of the sacraments, the sign is secondary, outward and visible.  The reality is primary, inward and invisible.

An important consequence of this is that neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper make or keep one a Christian.  That is, we do not become a Christian by being baptized, nor do we remain a Christian by ‘taking communion’ periodically.  Those signs merely point to something that has taken place or is taking place internally and invisibly.

Again, a sign frequently indicates ownership, and the sacraments do that too, particularly baptism.  Baptism indicates to the world and to ourselves that we are not our own but that we have been bought with a price and are now identified with Jesus….

3. The sacraments are means of grace to the one who rightly partakes of them.  In saying this we must be careful to point out that we are not therefore assigning some magical property to baptism or the observance of the Lord’s Supper, as if grace, like medicine, is automatically dispensed along with the material elements.  That error, in regard both to the sacraments and grace, led to the abuse of the sacraments in the early Roman Catholic Church and then later in some of the groups that emerged from the Reformation.  In each case the sacrament rather than faith became the means of salvation.  The custom arose even of delaying baptism (in particular) until the last possible moment before death, in order that the greatest number of sins might be washed away by it.

To say that the sacraments are not magical or mechanical, however, does not mean that they do not have value.  God has chosen to use them to encourage and strengthen faith in believers.  Thus, they presuppose the acknowledgment of God’s grace by the one who partakes of them, but they also strengthen faith by reminding the believer of what they signify and of the faithfulness of the One who has given them….

4. The sacraments are seals, certifications or confirmations to us of the grace they signify.  In our day the use of seals is infrequent, but the examples we have suggest the idea.  The seal of the United States of America appears on a passport, for example.  It is stamped into the paper so that the document cannot be altered, thus validating the passport and showing that the one possessing it is a United States citizen.  Other documents are validated by a notary public.  The notary’s seal is confirmation of the oath taken.  The sacraments are God’s seal on the attestation that we are his children and are in fellowship with him.

---

[1] Baptists typically refer to baptism and the Lord’s supper as ordinances, whereas Presbyterians typically refer to them as sacraments.  It is well known, however, that our Baptist forefathers did at times refer to them as sacraments, as well as ordinances.  While some Baptists may not like the term sacrament because of its intended meaning and use by Roman Catholics, I personally see no error in the use of the term.  The term sacrament emphasizes the sacred and mysterious (spiritual nature) aspects of baptism and the Lord’s supper, whereas ordinance emphasizes the institution of baptism and the Lord’s supper by Jesus Christ.

[2] The following is taken from Boice’s, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 595-597.  The emphases are his.