Rise of the Uberbaptist
or Crashing the Caste Party
Uri Brito asked me once how I can possibly believe that the church is central, and simultaneously be a baptist. Does being a baptistic fan of Jordan, Leithart and Wilson necessarily involve an element of schizophrenia? You might be interested to know how Federal Vision looks from where I stand. If not, just humour me.
As some hyperpreterists discovered, I’m not interested in the personalities involved in any debate. I’m interested in discussion, without prejudice. And I’m not in paid ministry so I have nothing to lose (mind you I have been hauled over the coals a couple of times by well-meaning ministers anyhow). And it’s my blog, so I’ll say what I think, and I leave it open for any readers to reply. In fact, I welcome debate. My cards are on the table and you can set them alight if you wish — and if you can.
It seems to me that the FV gents are really onto something. Their “strange” views on baptism and justification come out of the Scriptures, not so much out of the Reformation. Yet, the more I chew it over, the more I agree with them, and the more I can see what a thorn-in-the-foot their thinking is within Presbyterianism.
Concerning baptism, I think the significance they are giving to this rite is entirely Scriptural. (You can find more on my view of baptism if you click this baptism tag.) They want baptism to mark the territory of the Covenant people. Very good. The problem is, they have rediscovered this humongous V8 engine of significance, and tried to squeeze it into the mini minor of paedobaptism. The outcome is naturally a two-tiered Covenant people: those under oath by proxy (through Godparents), and those under oath by their own volition: the Christians and the Christian-ized.
Now, their enemies, also Reformed, understand that this is a problem. If the baptism of an infant has such a significance, it puts an untold amount of pressure on the doctrine of justification. The infant congregant is expected to keep Covenant (i.e. remain faithful to church, repent when they sin, stick with it), and if they don’t, they have apostatized. Baptism is likened to circumcision in many, but not all, ways by the FV gents. If you are part of the visible church, then you must be baptized.
I think this FV emphasis on a boundary, and the rite, and Covenant faithfulness is fantastic, and Scriptural. As a baptist, I have learned a great deal about the Bible from their materials, and have a lot more to learn. I might change my mind, but it seems that the entire problem is solved if infant baptism is removed from the equation. It’s the evil kid in the classroom, the ringleader, whose removal allows the other kids to take their rightful, respectful places and behave.
Uri said that Jordan says every baptism is an infant baptism. I like that thought. We come to Christ and are babes in the faith. I agree with Jordan that “regeneration” in Scripture is a process. But for all their talk about making the Covenant objective, baptism, unlike circumcision is neither a personal sign (as they accuse baptists of maintaining) nor a familial one. It is a sign that indicates the maturity of the entire New Covenant body over the Old Covenant body. Baptism does not indicate a boundary of flesh. It is a boundary of Spirit, a better Covenant sign for a different kind of Israel – a mature one that is able to judge rightly.
There are no bit-saints in the New Covenant. If you have the Spirit of God, you will persevere. God disciplines His children. Obedience becomes irresistible. That is what I see in Scripture and in my own experience. Baptism does not begins one’s life. It begins one’s ministry, one’s life of spiritual obedience.
The FVers understand the full import of the sign. Perhaps they actually are “poison” to traditional Presbyterianism. But it is a poison to which the FVs themselves are not immune. Their teachings are not at home in their own system. Strangely, their emphases gel perfectly with credobaptism, if not with the individualistic thinking of many baptists themselves.
But the other guys (TRs) understand that the giving of that import to infant baptism causes serious structural problems. At least they recognize it as poison to their system. The problem is not the poison. It is their weak system.
Allow only credobaptism and you can have both the import given to it by Scripture (serving as a priest and elder in the Holy Place and eating at Jesus’ table) and a freedom from the collateral damage to the precious Reformational sola fide.
To put this pictorially, the Scripture-sensitive FVs want to give a good shot of liquor to congregants. Full marks. The tradition-retentive TRs realize that giving a full shot of liquor to babies is not on. Full marks. Or to put it another way, one side wants to play table tennis with a football, and the other side realizes this will tear nets and smash paddles. How to resolve this? Play football with this rite, as God commanded.
The solution is to not only understand what baptism signifies, but whom it is actually for, and stop confusing it with Christian parenting.
Pull out the errant thorn, the doctrinal tensions will disappear, and everyone can relax. They just won’t be Presbyterians any more. They will be a kind of Christian the world has never seen, a godly hybrid of Presbyterian brain and Baptistic brawn — Uberbaptists who like poison and live on it — and I reckon that would be an incredible development. We just have to be patient and civilized until all this experimentation in the lab is finished.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
“The solution is to not only understand what baptism signifies, but whom it is actually for, and stop confusing it with Christian parenting.”
But, Mike, it’s not really so much about Christian parenting, though that’s part of it; it’s about citizenship and who Jesus claims as his own. I had no choice about being born a citizen of the U.S.A., just as covenant infants have no choice about being born into the Kingdom.
How they respond to their citizenship as years go by is another matter, which the FV also addresses. I have yet to see a little child repudiate the faith, but I’ve seen older kids fall away.
January 20th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Hey Mike,
First of all–AWESOME picture! Seriously cool, dude.
Secondly, and briefly, since I cannot linger, you said: “The outcome is naturally a two-tiered Covenant people: those under oath by proxy (through Godparents), and those under oath by their own volition: the Christians and the Christian-ized.” Problem-Baptists (and I used to be one) have to have the validity of baptism grounded in the CHOICE of the person. This is one of the reasons I am not a baptist anymore…gotta read P. Leithart’s “Sociology of Infant Baptism.” Sorry I can’t say more, gotta run.
January 20th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
And the two-tiered membership goes away with paedocom (by the way).
January 20th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Thanks for your comments!
Barb – there’s only one way to be born into the kingdom. Unbelievers can be “sanctified” (set apart) under the Covenant for sure, but they shouldn’t be baptized.
Daniel – all baptism is grounded in choice, either by proxy or by the believer. Credobaptism can most certainly be as objective, as Presbyterian adult baptisms show. And I think believing children should be baptized and allowed to the table.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Mike-
1) How are “unbelievers” set apart under the covenant without being baptized?
2) You’re right about baptism being grounded in choice, but maybe I’m not clear. For the baptist, the validity of the baptism itself comes from the individual being baptised, right? How can it be otherwise? We paedos simply don’t subscribe to that line of thought, which, as Peter Leithart points out is more Lockean than Hebraic. The baptism of children (before they can articulate their faith to the satisfaction of the elders) is legitimate because it is done by the authority of the church. And is thoroughly Calvinistic, too.
3) What is necessary for a legitimate baptism? Profession of faith? It seems like a profession of faith is more sacramental than baptism, no?
I would really like to hear how you would respond to some of Leithart’s arguments in TBB. Oh, and what does baptism do anyway? I had a hard time maintaining any sort of sacramental efficacy as a baptist. I’m interested to hear how a baptist argues for efficacy.
Anyway, some more thoughts…
Cool picture (again).
Enjoying the blog immensely by the way.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Hi Daniel
Thanks for you comments!
Sanctified in the same way an unbelieving spouse and kids would be. I agree that the Covenant is a shelter, the kingdom is a great tree (and I don’t go for the two-kingdom idea at all). It just seems that using a rite intended for a priesthood of all believers with unbelievers causes untold confusion. Would a presbyterian consider baptizing an unbelieving spouse?
The validity of credobaptism should still come from the authority of the church. The elders judge whether the person’s testimony is true or false and allow them to take the baptismal “oath.”
I don’t see how Calvinism is logically (if traditionally) linked with baptism. Surely it is playing God, electing people who cannot testify.
As above, a profession of faith and baptism are linked. If you think the profession is sacramental, good. Typologically, the resurrection body is about the witness of wise men and women (Maturity) and their induction into government (Conquest/Laver). The Nazirite vow was for both sexes, which is an interesting correspondence.
I’m still reading The Baptized Body. Some really good stuff, and some things that seem really forced to me, concerning infants. When finished I might do a rundown. I welcome all discussion.
I’m happy to change my mind. If paedos are right, and I end up just being a bit of gristle they sharpen their teeth on, I consider it an honour.
Thanks again for the replies, and for your encouragement.
Now, I have to finish cutting out computer rendered pressure tanks.
January 21st, 2011 at 6:56 am
Mike,
Greetings brother!
Still: God promises to be God to believers and their children. This is worked out in the theology of Ps. 22 for instance:
But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother’s womb You have been My God.
and continues seamlessly through the NT – “children obey your parents /in the Lord/. Children are still /in the Lord/.
Blessings,
Doug Roorda
January 21st, 2011 at 7:01 am
Hi Mike! I started following your blog recently thanks to a pointer from Leithart’s blog. I’m part of a credo church but over the last few years have become paedo/FV, partly thanks to the influence of Horne, Leithart and Wilson, and partly as I’ve reflected on fatherhood. Credo thought has never had a good answer for me on how I ought to think and talk about my children’s relation to God, and the FV really has (Leithart’s TBB, Lillback’s Binding of God, etc.).
I’ve started listening through the complete Jordan lectures, and what you say about baptism here definitely connects with the theme of maturity I’m picking up. A few questions occur to me, and I’m very curious how you deal with them:
First, you connect baptism with “boundary of Spirit.” But I wonder if you would agree that, now, the Spirit is already poured out on all of our children? Have you read Lusk’s Paedofaith? Even in David’s day God’s people confessed that his Spirit was at work in them in the womb (Psalm 22, 71), and the Messianic aspect here makes it clear that this is all the more true now. Since Jesus is our forerunner, firstborn, template, author, we should expect that we will all the more follow him in being filled with the Spirit from before birth. Baptism is a union with Christ, which cannot exclude his infancy. The least to the greatest know him; even our sons and daughters prophesy; and, crucially, it is a childlike faith that owns the kingdom. Jesus welcomes and blesses infants, and what does he bless them with if not his Spirit? Many aspects of the new covenant’s maturity and the Spirit’s work really do seem to stretch all the way down, and I think that has implications for baptism.
Second, what really “gets me going,” personally, is paedocommunion. I can somewhat understand [re]interpreting new-covenant baptism as a commissioning and sending out of adults. But I cannot understand refusing the nourishment and fellowship of the Lord’s supper to any who are his. Table fellowship is a huge deal; overwhelmingly I think that covenant meals are to include even young children. Consider 1 Corinthians’ emphasis on body life, with 1 Cor 11 just one piece of that. This all has implications for baptism since baptism precedes the supper as initiation precedes renewal. I’m curious how you navigate this — whether (and why) you would say that infants and toddlers participate in the body, therefore the supper, thus baptism.
Finally, at a practical level I think what Paul says about weak faith in relation to baptized, communicant brothers applies equally to childlike faith. Arguably our children are in a less precarious position than these brothers for whom Christ died. Their exclusion “is not in keeping with the truth of the gospel.” So even if baptism is not for infants, it cannot be very much delayed. I’m curious what your thoughts are on appropriate ages for baptism. Have you read Poythress’s two articles reflecting on this?
January 21st, 2011 at 8:56 am
Hi Doug
Yes, I agree that this is an area neglected by baptists. But the NT connect baptism with the second birth and ministry. In other words, the Old “immature” Covenant was about forming, creating Adam, an altar of earth. The New “mature” Covenant is about filling, the Holy Fire on the Altar, the Law on the inside. Hence Jesus’ words concerning committing adultery and murder in our hearts. With the Spirit, we are no longer children, governed by angels/tutors/godparents.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:21 am
Hi Scott
Thanks for you comment. I don’t want to steer you in any particular direction, but this stuff is certainly worth chewing over.
I had a pastor years ago whose friend from university witnessed to him for twelve years. I’d say the Spirit was at work in him, forming an Altar (see comment to Doug above).
As for the Spirit being poured out on children, if you are referring to the prophecy in Joel, they prophesied. The Spirit brings “bridal” testimony, and is linked to the courtroom.
Jesus welcomed infants, but the passage is about a child-like (i.e. unquestioning) faith in adults.
I agree that children raised “under the Spirit” in the Covenant will more likely follow Him. That’s just how farming is. But paedobaptism counts the chicks before they are hatched. Only the warriors are counted.
I do think that young children who make a profession should be baptized and allowed to commune, but this takes great wisdom. There is the argument that children are trained in this rite as a pattern for life. But for baptists, at least in our church, children see it performed every week. They know there is a challenge, an oath, a step of obedient faith to take, before they can partake. It is still a very effective discipleship. Also, I think it takes great wisdom when it comes to children, unless you spend a lot of time reading to them and praying with them. My kids’ faith amazes me.
The Covenant cup is, as Jordan says, a commitment to martyrdom. That’s not something to be given by proxy. The nations benefited from Israel’s keeping of Passover. (See: http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/08/on-the-outside-looking-in/ )
As for body life, the body is pictured by God as a school of fish or a flock of birds, moving as one, as though held together by invisible strings. That’s the Spirit between us. Children are in training, to walk in these ways. They are sheltered within the body, but the body is held together by the Spirit (and excommunication should also be “by the Spirit.”)
Haven’t read Poythress, and am still working on appropriate ages. I do think it’s pretty obvious that baptism is linked to repentance (were the Jews bringing their children to John for baptism?) so that, and the ability to testify, are a key.
Again, as above, child-rearing is Old Covenant, the bloody Altar. The New Covenant transcends those links. When a child comes to faith, the blood tie (childrearing) is transcended. The bond of the Spirit is where we find communion. The table is for those under oath. That is why God always gives us two tables: See also: http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/01/05/eat-local-and-die/
If there were no tradition of infant baptism in history, is it a conclusion we would come to from Scripture? I don’t think I would.
Thanks for your good questions.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Mike, thanks. Especially in your reference to two tables, it sounds like your view is missing some of the hard edges that are difficult for me.
I don’t know if I would come to it apart from history. But, starting out convinced that one doesn’t baptize infants, I must say that the question of when and why to baptize my children really forced me to think long and hard about it.
From the youngest possible age, we are leading, training them in little prayers of repentance and to walk in faith. Mommy and Daddy gladly forgive them for their little offenses, and we rejoice together with them in God’s real forgiveness too. You speak of “when” a child comes to faith, but the process of their growing in ongoing faith and repentance really seems much more organic. Perhaps I have simply fallen for a sorites paradox (just one more day earlier!), but I think Scripture really would have us follow the threads all the way back, not doubting that what we see is real life, repentance, faith and loyalty. We don’t train them to think that one day they will swear allegiance to Jesus; we train them to know that Jesus is Lord.
There are other factors too — God’s covenants, character, our union and conformance to Jesus, postmillennialism, etc. But thinking about the way that they learn and grow in faith — and whether it is even meaningful to pinpoint this for baptism — is what got me started.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Scott
Yes- it’s not simple. But I am faced with the fact that paedobaptism causes a great deal of confusion concerning what a Christian is (two-tiers), and the fact that (and this is what really got me going) typologically, the Bible consistently puts baptism at Conquest. Shafting it back to Creation as some kind of anointing actually messes up the process of anointing, and the process of construction (forming and filling, as pictured in the ascension rite). Christian child-rearing is forming, building an Altar with the tools of the Law. We see this with the Ethiopian eunuch, for instance. He was formed by the Law. Following this consistent pattern, baptism is only for the filled. I think we do train our kids to swear allegiance to Jesus – as the Lord they know. There is no greater blessing for me than to hear the testimony at a credobaptism. It has God’s fingerprints all over it. As amazing as a new baby is, the real miracle is the new birth and the witness that follows.
January 21st, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Understanding what (or who) a Christian is is necessarily two-tiered no matter how you look at it. On the one hand (and this is one of the FV emphases) you simply cannot know who is going to persevere other than yourself, and even self-knowledge of perseverance is not guaranteed or promised to all those whom God has decreed salvation. This gets at the nub of the visible/invisible distinction (or historical/estchatological, if you prefer). I know my heart but I can’t know in your heart. Two years from now you may be an atheist. Sure, you can say, now, that you won’t ever fall away and you can cite all the right passages of assurance and you may have surety but that surety doesn’t extend beyond the boundaries of your body and soul. And this outward “tier” is the tier in which all non-transcendent beings live and move and have their being.
So, it seems to me that your characterization of the two tiers according to FV formulations is mistaken. It isn’t 1. proxy, 2. volition. Rather it’s 1. objective and 2. subjective. This eliminates the “untold amount of pressure” on justification because we can see, on the surface of it, that baptism is primarily objective (though it has subjective elements) and justification is primarily subjective (though it has objective elements).
Moreover, how would you deal with the great commission where we have Jesus admonishing us to make disciples of the nations. How do we do that? We baptize them and then teach them. You say that baptism is neither personal nor familial but the NT presents it as both. Here is Sutton on sanctions:
“As a matter of fact, the redemption of Adam and Eve is also the redemption of the family, demonstrated by the constant emphasis on bringing the whole household into the faith. The same principle of representation holds true in salvation of a family unit. Many cases of household salvation by representation can be cited. Noah’s family, not just “adult” believers, is brought into the ark. Abraham’s family is given salvation through the circumcision of the males: makes represent females. And in the sanctions section of Deuteronomy, we read of the various categories of people to whom the sanctions are applied (Deut. 29:10-12).”
That section of Deuteronomy specifically identifies “little ones… that you may enter into the covenant with the Lord your God, and into His oath which the Lord your God is making with you today.” This “sanctions” section carries over from the Old to the New, and the sign isn’t limited to merely the representatives. We see household baptisms on a couple of different occasions in the NT and I suspect those occurrences even included non-believers who were members of the household. So would a presbyterian baptize an unbelieving wife (or husband) because of the believing spouse? No. Should we? It seems so. Sutton goes on to point out that “the covenant has terms of unconditionality. The children may grow up and deny the covenant. They may fall away. But of course, this is a possibility for adults. The sanctions are familial. Cut off the children, and one effectively destroys the future!” Baptism, like circumcision, is a legal sign and seal of covenantal adoption; which is to say a sign and seal of covenantal life. To refuse baptism to infants is to refuse them covenantal life (i.e. covenantal adoption). You can raise that child all you want “in the admonition of the Lord” but admonishing dead folks won’t be as productive as you might think, or as productive as it looks on the outside.
January 21st, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Hi Jared
Great interaction. I will try to be brief:
Re: Two-tiers
Yes, this is a problem, and one the apostles had to deal with. This is most certainly where taking the oath and lying would bring down curses. But this is more like a knight swearing allegiance and betraying you than it is suddenly realising one day that although you were baptized as an infant you will never believe. So, problem, yes. Deliberate two-tiered system, no. Infant baptism is more than asking for trouble (calling those who don’t have the Spirit of Christ Christians), it is outright playing on the highway.
Re: Proxy
Since when is an oath either only subjective or objective? It is an oath. An oath requires both volition and submission. You testify, swear, subjectively, and something objective is done to you. Taking the oath on behalf of infants is not something we ever see in the New Testament. It is not an identification with flesh and blood at all.
Re: The Great Commission
Firstly, Jesus said, “I will be with you,” just as He did as Captain to Joshua. He only ever says “I will be with you” when sending men into battle. Baptism prepares you for battle as a priest and a legal witness.
That’s the disciples. What about the nations? The commission itself follows the Tabernacle pattern, and once again we see the theme of maturity: Gentiles (Incense); Baptism & Discipleship (Laver – with disciples as elders on the sea); and finally Shekinah/succession. So the idea of nations is nations as armies. It is a command to warriors to go and conquer and purify the Land. If it had been a command to circumcise them, would we assume that females were somehow included in that?
Re: Households
Households were businesses, just as they were in Abraham’s time. Were the females circumcised in Abraham’s house? No. But was his entire household circumcised? Yes. The ark of Noah was a shelter. The animals sheltered under the Covenant people. That’s the idea of being a sanctified unbeliever I guess. You are called (Creation) and set apart (Division) for “forming” under the Law (Ascension). It’s a blessing as far as it goes.
Sutton’s observations are great, but as I said, baptism is a different kind of Covenant. It is one that puts the faithful into priesthood. If you want a Covenant boundary that marks the boundaries of the entire “shelter” then do something else. We never see baptism used in this way. It is always connected with repentance and faith, in every single instance. Would the apostles have not seen that baptizing infants would become a problem? The sword-water makes a clean cut — a spiritual one — just as the sword made a clean cut between Jew and Gentile.
To refuse baptism to infants is not to deny the Covenantal life. They shelter under their parents (or guardians), and it is an instruction and invitation to Covenantal life. The heirs of the kingdom are not children according to the flesh. Those of faith are the children of Abraham.
Finally, the whole purpose of having a converted, regenerate Israel is testimony, admonition to the dead that they may live. I don’t really understand your final point. It sounds as though baptized infants have some sort of half-life because they are baptized. No. It is the Law that brings us to Christ, a Law that any spiritually-dead person can hear. If we are cut to the heart, the Spirit falls and we become the smoky bridal army. The Laver follows. Why would God suddenly change the order? The Laver wasn’t for the children, it was for the priests. Circumcision was fulfilled in Christ, and all believers are now priests with clean feet. Circumcision is the prostration of death. Infants are prostrate and helpless. Baptism makes us upright, on our clean feet, serving in the Holy Place.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:50 am
Mike, you’ve got your super-Doppler radar scanning the next county and you’re doing a fine job predicting some baptismal weather. But I would encourage you to look right out the window and see Psalm 22 and Eph. 6 – it’s raining grace right now, and those children are still “in the Lord.”
Many blessings, brother!
Doug
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:24 am
Hi Doug
Law and Grace, forming and filling, flesh and Spirit. Infants might be in the king’s house, but baptism is for those who can say, as warrior-bride approaching the king’s court, “If I perish, I perish.”
Good onya
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Baptism is for getting into the king’s house and communion is for maturing to said warrior-bride. Elders aren’t tasked with waiting for infants to approach the king’s court and say such-and-such before baptizing. They’re tasked with church discipline — locking out those who by word or deed clearly indicate themselves as non- or even anti-Christian. Generally, the longer a credo-baptist keeps infants of the covenant community from the special grace of communion, the older the children will be before they pass the test for even baptism.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Frank – thanks for your comment
That’s not the order we are consistently given, particularly in Acts, where many passages follow this exact order (a version of the matrix):
Creation – Call (proclamation)
Division – Circumcision (cut to the heart)
Ascension – Forming of Altar
Testing – Reception of Holy Spirit
Maturity – Confession with the mouth as witness
Conquest – Baptism
Glorification – Table/Household (food and shelter)
or its evil twin, which we see in the account of Stephen’s martyrdom.
The sacraments are not for the unconverted (the filled). Bread is for nourishment as priests, but wine is a legal oath as kings. Not for bubbas, who cannot judge between mother and father. Even Samuel wasn’t taken to the Tabernacle until he was weaned, able to hear the Lord’s voice and respond verbally. The Gospel-Law-Sword is for the unconverted. We have no business baptizing anyone who is not repentant. Paedobaptism reverses the natural order of things. Natural, then Spiritual; Flesh, then Spirit; Blood, then Fire; Head, then Body. Rock split (Law), then waters (Grace).
Credobaptists can mess up their judgment, for sure, but their judgment is the door to church discipline. The locking out takes place in the gates, the place of judgment, the watery walls of the crystal city. The Old Covenant sign was Jews inside, Gentiles outside. We can’t apply that to baptism. The picture we are given of the New Jerusalem is credo inside, non-credo outside. How can rejecting your infant baptism be apostasy? When God truly begins a work in us, He is faithful to finish it. This is the inside-Covenant now, forming AND filling, law written on flesh.
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Sorry – I should be more specific about that last point. At Glorification the saint does not RECEIVE food and shelter. The food was the Word at Testing. The shelter is the entire Day of the Lord. As a Tabernacle, a “Booth,” the saint goes out on the great quest (commission) AS food and shelter for the 70 nations. (Notice how many passages in Acts follow this pattern and end in “household.” The apostles were fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles with faithful branches.)
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 am
“To refuse baptism to infants is not to deny the Covenantal life. They shelter under their parents (or guardians), and it is an instruction and invitation to Covenantal life. The heirs of the kingdom are not children according to the flesh. Those of faith are the children of Abraham.”
The highest point of Covenantal life is Communion and we both agree Baptism is its requirement. So you’re not denying the majority of the week’s time but rather its best and most edifying part.
Elders wash infants with the Word of life and feed them with the Body of Christ. That’s how they mature as warrior-brides. Elders don’t just give them spiritual words and pray they mature into manifest believers or warriors so they can then be washed and given spiritual food. (Will a few fall away after Word and Sacrament? Sure. Hebrews 6 and 10.)
Your last two sentences quoted above are no longer speaking of covenant life per se (the covenantal elect), but rather those who persevere and inherit (the decretal elect).
The elders know they cannot tell who was regenerated in the womb or in infancy. They can only tell who sinned in word or deed and won’t receive correction. Covenant children (children of covenant members) are in until proven out. The initiation rite of that Covenant is Baptism and its continuation/participation rite is Communion. Our children need physical food and spiritual food.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Hi Frank
I really don’t see how you can believe anyone is regenerated in the womb. If that were the case then Nicodemus was on the right track and Jesus was wrong. It seems that paedobaptists have a hard time distinguishing between the first birth, and the nourishment and discipline that requires, including the Word, and the second birth, which is not by the will of man but by the Spirit.
Were Israelite females circumcised? No. Could females and infants be be priests? No. Did these un-signed, un-sacrifice-meat-eating Israelites take part in Covenant life? Certainly. What has changed is the priesthood, and the sacrifice.
If we were to take this paedobaptistic thinking to its logical conclusion, we would be adopting as many infants as possible and baptizing them.
Elders do give children words and pray they mature. The New Covenant has moved on from the old. Circumcision put clean meat on the Altar, the Covenant head, so it had to be male. Baptism robes the bride. It is a knighthood for the warriors, the beginning of the ministry of priest-kings. I think this missing element was sensed by those who introduced confirmation. Confirmation is unbiblical, as Jordan points out. But it was introduced to fill the gap left by an unbiblical baptism.
The Lord’s table is Covenant renewal – it is a weekly renewal of the oath taken as a vassal king. It is not baby food. It is a jealous inspection (Numbers 5).
To clarify my statement, the invitation then would not be to Covenantal life if we define that as participation. It is an invitation to become accountable to the oath and under church discipline. Under the New Covenant, all the Lord’s people are prophets, witnesses, in a priesthood of all believers. Allowing infant baptism in amongst all these ideas is to attach an axle to a wheel off-centre. It puts everything else out of kilter.
Another way to think of it is this. Under the Old Covenant, Israel was the Bronze Altar. Under the New Covenant, the church is the Incense Altar, the place of Spirit-filled elders. Between these two is the Laver. The Covenant sign reflects this, as does the requirement for repentance, faith, Spirit-filling and profession that comes before it.
Yes, the Table is food, king’s food. Adam stole it before he was ready for it. Daniel and Christ refused it because it was a satanic offer. Communion is the food of kings. The wine was denied to Israel because, in God’s court, they were priests. To give Communion to the unregenerate is to promote a misunderstanding of both the legal and gracious import of the Table. It is for the mature, and as my children saw this rite carried out, they understood this. As we take Communion, we ourselves become bread and wine – and then we go and teach the infants.
I have no problem with baptizing repentant, faithful, professing children. But even the sons of the king are under tutors until they are ready to rule, aren’t they? The Covenant sign is for those who personally picture the role of the entire body. Israel was the offspring of the Woman. New Israel is His bride, the resurrection body. Claiming that all in the church should be baptized is like claiming that women should be preaching. It is an inappropriate delegation of a liturgical station.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Many passages are either to or about listening adults or parents rather than preborns, infants or children:
2 Thess. 3:10: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”
1 Tim. 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
John 3:4 “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
It appears the Holy Spirit was working in Elizabeth and John in Luke 1:41-44 but peadocommunion doesn’t stand or fall on preborn or infant regeneration.
I don’t yet understand why you asked if females were circumcised or whatever else. How is its answer in the negative a negation of paedo anything? Credo baptists don’t bar females. Infants (boys) were circumcised. It’s no surprise to see the male and female distinction in the new covenant initiation removed. Do you think infants were barred from the Passover? We know some partook and later asked what it meant.
“If we were to take this paedobaptistic thinking to its logical conclusion, we would be adopting as many infants as possible and baptizing them.”
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
There’s nothing derogatory about “baby food” especially when it’s tasty bread and wine that’s been received with thanks in the church. You seem to have a high view of the Word given to all in the church. We don’t keep it from infants because someone may think the Word would be received as “baby talk” or “baby noises.”
“The Lord’s table is [...] a jealous inspection (Numbers 5).” Can you elaborate? Are you basing that on I Cor. 11′s examining?
“To clarify my statement, the invitation then would not be to Covenantal life if we define that as participation. It is an invitation to become accountable to the oath and under church discipline.”
Yes; I don’t see this as a dichotomy but as a progression from the entrance rite to participation which includes becoming increasingly accountable to the church.
“Yes, the Table is food, king’s food. Adam stole it before he was ready for it.”
Are you saying the Table food is the Tree of Knowledge or gives one knowledge of good and evil and kingly rule?
“To give Communion to the unregenerate is to promote a misunderstanding of both the legal and gracious import of the Table.”
Did you mean ungracious as if God punishes infant partakers and/or adult providers?
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
“As we take Communion, we ourselves become bread and wine – and then we go and teach the infants.”
The thing we teach most in this case is that they are not children of the promise. They are excluded even though in the midst of Christ’s body. With children sitting between parents, their “passover meal” is watching the elements pass over them.
“But even the sons of the king are under tutors until they are ready to rule, aren’t they?”
Sure; we both agree infants are given the Word and mature via the church.
“Claiming that all in the church should be baptized is like claiming that women should be preaching.”
Baptism is an initiation rite into the church. The office of elder/overseer has further restrictions (I Tim 3, Titus 1) and the office does not picture the bride but the bridegroom. (And should wear a manly white robe).
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
“If we were to take this paedobaptistic thinking to its logical conclusion, we would be adopting as many infants as possible and baptizing them.”
Yes, I’ve thought about that:) We as parents could use fertility drugs or have sex as often as possible. Only the latter probably doesn’t involve spending money, which is a legit parental consideration in the realm of family economy and the responsibility to provide in all aspects, especially considering the wife.
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Frank
Thanks for you comments again.
“I don’t yet understand why you asked if females were circumcised or whatever else.”
The point is that the Covenant sign was not applied to every individual within the Covenant people, only those who could image the Abrahamic Covenant.
“The Lord’s table is [...] a jealous inspection (Numbers 5).” Can you elaborate? Are you basing that on I Cor. 11’s examining?
It’s the testing of the bride for harlotry, the sword-water that pierces her soul, puts her under oath and identifies her as either a blessing or a curse, fruitful or barren. Jesus has become the “Amen” of the oath. If we examine ourselves, the curse remains upon Him. We see a similar rite in Revelation 2-3, where Jezebel has not been thrown out, as commanded during Jesus’ previous visit.
The cup is for the wise, those with the Spirit of Christ, who is all the riches of wisdom and knowledge. Like Adam, we are called to judge ourselves and not shift the blame. For the unwise, the cup is a cup of staggering. The sword-water brings a fall or a rise in Israel.
“They are excluded even though in the midst of Christ’s body.” Yes, simply because this is not a Covenant made with flesh. Unlike Passover, it transcends familial ties. There were no children at the Last Supper, only the Bride.
“Baptism is an initiation rite into the church.” Yes it is, but the church is not a body of flesh under Law. It is a body of flesh filled with the Spirit of grace. It is not familial. Jesus’ brothers and sisters are not his relatives, but those who do what He says. As I get through Dr. Leithart’s baptized body, I agree with much of it. The visible church is the church. But the visible church is a shelter to unbelievers. As we discussed above concerning unbelieving spouses, should be baptize an unbelieving regular attendee? Surely this would apply equally. That’s where the logic falls apart. New Covenant succession is not fleshly. Satan cannot cut it off by killing our infants as he did in the Old Testament (and he still uses that method, but ends up only cutting off unbelievers from history).
“The office of elder/overseer has further restrictions (I Tim 3, Titus 1) and the office does not picture the bride but the bridegroom.” The Nazirite vow is helpful here. A woman could take the vow, and become this temporary warrior-priest. But she could not be a priest and image the Bridegroom. Similarly, baptism is for the warrior bride. It has restrictions, at a wider level than officer/elder. It is not something that can be given by proxy. That is the entire nature of mediation. Baptism begins an office. The faithful are mediators. Infants are not mediators. Jesus’ baptism began His office, His ministry. For sure, further development followed as He was tested, but He was tested in Israel’s place as a mediator. He defeated the devil so He could cast out demons, etc.
“There’s nothing derogatory about baby food.” No, unless you serve it to your cabinet or congress. It’s not a feast. It’s the fulfilment of the Old Covenant oath. That’s why in the Lord’s service it is near the end, not at the beginning.
“Are you saying the Table food is the Tree of Knowledge or gives one knowledge of good and evil and kingly rule?” As above, the wise will judge rightly, drink and bring peace. The unwise will stagger and fall. Jesus offers us both Trees in the Supper. They are distinct, as distinct as death and resurrection. But He has united them for us and made us priest-kings. Babies can’t judge.
“I don’t see this as a dichotomy but as a progression from the entrance rite to participation which includes becoming increasingly accountable to the church.” Wouldn’t it make more sense for children to be accountable to their parents until they submit themselves to the authority of the church for discipline? Dad decides when child is ready. When the Spirit is poured out, and the child is given the “arbiter of the heart,” the child is received into the church as a governor, a vassal, an accountable judge.
The big problem is trying to bring the Old Covenant child-rearing into the New Covenant. Sure, this rediscovery is wonderful. But tagging baptism onto it is unbiblical. It pictures the saints passing-through into government as elders, olders. Our communion is with the ascended saints, the OT faithful and NT martyrs, but only as we conform to their doctrine.
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them…”
The New Covenant body is an eldership. Emphasizing Covenantal family life is great. We want to plant and water. But the church is the increase, and it is not an increase of flesh. Or, to put it another way, we must follow the procedure shown to us in God’s kitchen, the Tabernacle. Paedobaptists are serving raw meat.
“Did you mean ungracious as if God punishes infant partakers and/or adult providers?” No. I meant the purpose of the Table is misunderstood.
But that’s an interesting point! God is gracious, as demonstrated by Israel’s and the church’s consistent misuse and abuse of His rites. What did God do when childish Adam seized the “wine”? Jesus wore it, in the animal substitutes. As Jordan observes, there are sins of “leading astray” and high-handed sins. If we think we are doing the right thing, and have been misled by our leaders, God understands that. But when the leaders possess full knowledge of their sin, it’s high handed. Jesus ripped into the rulers (“the kings of the land” as they are called in Revelation). I don’t think any paedobaptists are deliberately doing the wrong thing. The FVs especially have uncovered the freighttrain of typology behind the sacraments, which was the point of my post. And I believe even Denzel Washington won’t be able to stop this one from a toxic disaster in Stanton. It’s already breaking wineskins, and, given time, I think it’s going to go a lot further than the FV gents realize.
“We as parents could use fertility drugs or have sex as often as possible.” Yes, like my independent baptist friends say (and some have as many kids as Dr Leithart or more), “If you can’t win ‘em, breed ‘em.” On that we agree.
Thanks for the stimulating interaction!
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
“As we discussed above concerning unbelieving spouses, should be baptize an unbelieving regular attendee?”
All professing unbelievers including spouses should be barred from the whole worship service. I don’t believe merely barring from the Table is a biblical option for elders.
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
That’s a bit exclusive. The Word will either soften them or harden them, and that’s good. The sword-Word always comes first, which is my point. But if they are still vacillating, still undecided and not defiant, are they not part of the “visible church” using Leithart’s definition? If what is good for the adult is good for the infant, then what is good for the infant is good for the adult.
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:33 pm
““There’s nothing derogatory about baby food.” No, unless you serve it to your cabinet or congress. It’s not a feast.”
To clarify, I assumed the “baby food” to be tasty bread and wine…and especially when used in Communion. I wasn’t talking about blending unsightly vegetable pieces or some such mush. Communion should be a simple yet profound feast. Not much work involved in its preparation (which is good for a day of rest), but a feast physically (good quantities) and spiritually (a heavenly feast with Christ).
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:42 pm
The worship service starts with a call to worship to professing believers and their children not under church discipline/censure.
“But if they are still vacillating, still undecided and not defiant, are they not part of the “visible church” using Leithart’s definition?”
Undecided about the truth of the gospel? Not to be allowed into worship, even if they undefiantly want to be. It’s a worship service. It prepares some with the gift of evangelists, teachers, etc. But it is not itself a direct evangelistic outreach, Promise Keeper rally, Billy Graham crusade, etc.
“If what is good for the adult is good for the infant, then what is good for the infant is good for the adult.”
Yes, assuming you mean the “adult” who can profess does not profess unbelief (and not under church discipline).
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“Wouldn’t it make more sense for children to be accountable to their parents until they submit themselves to the authority of the church for discipline? Dad decides when child is ready.”
The parents are accountable to the church. The bible decides requirements such as when the child is ready. Elders are to strongly admonish parents to baptize their infants. Do I think it a church discipline issue? Yes. My only reservation is that I know of no modern excommunication of parents continuing to bar children from covenantal sacraments. I suspect this will start happening in a future century.
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Melchizedek and Abraham enjoyed bread and wine. But then Abraham was circumcized. God superseded the Noahic priesthood – or bifurcated it – in Abraham, but more essentially in Moses, where priesthood was centralized. So the Gentiles watched Israel celebrate Passover, and Israel watched the priesthood make sacrifices, and the priesthood watched the wine being tipped out. No one was qualified to drink wine with God until Messiah (which also puts Ezekiel’s Temple into its historical context as Restoration era). It was all pedagogical, a time of childhood. We hear of “the children’s bread” but never “the children’s wine,” and for good reason.
I have no problem with children watching the supper until they are ready for government. Israel did it for hundreds of years. We can learn by watching as well as by doing. We are mediated to until we are ready to take the mantle of mediator.
My point was that baby food has its place. And the Lord’s supper has its place. Baptists might get baptism right, but you guys serve meaty sermons. Most baptists live on baby food until their teeth (sense of judgment) fall out through lack of use, or they die of starvation – or in desperation they eat out and their lack of judgment causes them to choose junk food.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:12 pm
“Undecided about the truth of the gospel? Not to be allowed into worship…” But children for whom the decision has been made by proxy are OK? I think the first century meetings were open, but the Table was restricted (and of course Peter was restricting it even more.) It really doesn’t look like the first services were closed in any way (except for those under discipline). The worship service might not be an outreach, but there is certainly that process of “looking on.”
“The parents are accountable to the church.” Yes, but the children are not directly accountable to the church. Unless the parents’ failure makes it necessary – like Samuel having to kill Agag because Saul failed to.
“Elders are to strongly admonish parents to baptize their infants.” I don’t see this anywhere. I did read one gent who took PB to its logical conclusion (postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com):
“Not to warn parents of the dangers of not baptizing must be seen in light of Genesis 17. Not to have the sign is to be rejected by God; to be his self declared enemy. God told Abraham not that he would only love him but that he would also love his children.”
This is logical, but it is logic based on a false assumption, and it leads to a monstrous conclusion. It confounds the sign of mortification with the sign of resurrection.
I think, biblically, we need to understand the idea of the visible (i.e. believing, regenerate) church as a shelter, and let unbelievers in to listen and look on. That boundary should not exist. And the baptismal boundary should reflect that. Look at Paul’s description of the New Covenant body in Ephesians 5:
“And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; THAT WE SHOULD NO LONGER BE CHILDREN, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
I’m not saying children can’t be wise. My kids often shame me! The point is that the New Covenant is for mature SPEAKERS, witnesses, and the New Covenant boundary-sign reflects this. Paedobaptism turns all this talk of maturity on its head.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:07 pm
““Undecided about the truth of the gospel? Not to be allowed into worship…” But children for whom the decision has been made by proxy are OK?”
What is not OK is a profession of unbelief or undecision. Children with one believing parent are in until they prove themselves out.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
“The worship service might not be an outreach, but there is certainly that process of “looking on.””
If they’re walled off or viewing via screen, fine. They’re not to be present in the worshiping body.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:10 pm
““Elders are to strongly admonish parents to baptize their infants.” I don’t see this anywhere.”
Of course you don’t, yet.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:11 pm
“I think, biblically, we need to understand the idea of the visible (i.e. believing, regenerate) church as a shelter,”
Apart from the hours of the worship service, OK.
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I don’t know the point you’re making with Ephesians 5.
I think the church doors before the service need discerning elders, not immature friendly members with “Usher” name tags letting in and directing strangers to seats without question.
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
“If they’re walled off or viewing via screen, fine. They’re not to be present in the worshiping body.”
That’s not New Testament church. NT worship invites people to come in. The walls are down. The only wall left is the crystal one – baptism.
“Of course you don’t, yet.” As I said, this is a logical conclusion, but based upon an unbiblical assumption. To see it, I would have to make the same assumption.
“Apart from the hours of the worship service, OK.”
Again, that’s Old Testament thinking. Th Ark is open. The Temple is open. Worship is now open. Nothing is hidden any longer.
“I don’t know the point you’re making with Ephesians 5.” Childish, elemental things have been put away. The heart of the New Covenant is Maturity of judgment, the Law within.
“…not letting in strangers without question.” Yes, let them stay in the highways and byways. They are not welcome unless they have a sponsor, or have been “checked” by a TSA rep at the door.
No, no, no. Jesus is the door now. You enter Him as Tabernacle, by faith, and then you are baptized, enrobed, and welcome at the king’s table.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:48 am
The diff between a groping TSA rep and an inquisitive elder representing Jesus at the worship door is huge.
January 24th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Yes, you are right. But surely the only person who is an actual threat to New Testament worship would be someone with a gun or a bomb.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:17 am
There are damages physically and in spirit/truth. A huge bomb is on the upper end of the physical scale. But the main point of the elder/shepherd and the gate/door is to have a flock called out from the rest and assembled together in a protected sanctuary. They not only keep out the obvious wolves, but the not so obvious. They don’t allow the enemy to secretly sneak in as was mentioned by Paul in Galatians. They keep out the tares out before they take root and cause damage when removed later. The visitor doesn’t need to sign the huge WCF or Three Forms, but we definitely need more vetting of visitors than most churches do now: He breathes, he smiles, he’s in.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:28 am
The picture we are given of the New Covenant Bride is (Judah’s) Tamar, and Ruth, and Rahab and Esther, women who willingly approached with the desire to be under Covenant. I think you are applying church discipline principles to evangelism. Sure, some come with the intention to cause trouble. The body ejects them like a splinter – or should. But this comes back to baptism as a submission to the church’s authority. Baptism is the door to the church. If the trouble-maker is an unbaptized “seeker,” they don’t have any authority anyway.
January 24th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Hi Mike
You wrote:
“Infant baptism is more than asking for trouble (calling those who don’t have the Spirit of Christ Christians), it is outright playing on the highway.”
I’m trying to understand your position. Are the children of Christians non-Christians? Is their default position one of being without the “spirit of Christ” until they pledge some sort of baptismal oath?
If so, what are they in your view? Unregenerate unbelievers set apart to be tutored within the gates of the Church (with the Church consisting only of professing believers)? It seems like you’re arguing that the default position for children of Christians is a category you call “unbeliever” (at least until they’ve made some sort of credible profession of faith).
A person is either “in Christ” or not, right? Either pro-Christ or anti-Christ. There’s no third way. Or are you saying that there is? That sounds like some sort of pseudo or halfway covenant to me.
You acknowledge:
“Baptism is the door to the church.”
By necessity then, in your view, children are outside of the church?
Saying that children are outside of the boundaries of the Spirit’s work seems to go against the core of what FV is.
Am I misunderstanding you or is this what you are saying?
FV pastors have indicated that the status of children is one of the key concerns (and maybe the central one) of the FV.
FV: You know, for kids.
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003076.php
With serious respect and appreciation for your theological endeavors,
-John O.
P.S. Baptism as oath seems to be the core of what you’re articulating here and an oath-by-proxy seems to be your main objection to paedobaptism. I’d like to understand why this is the primary way you view baptism.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:23 am
How can I argue with John Owen? (I bet you’re sick of that by now)
The NT is pretty clear that a Christian is defined by repentance and faith. So infants would be like those who reside in a Christian culture – under tutelage. They are not technically Christians, but they are not pagans. They are under the grace of God that should lead to repentance.
They are not outside the work of the Spirit of Christ, as illustrated in a comment way above. The Spirit uses the Law to convict of sin. But the Spirit is not indwelling. It is a situation like that of most of Old Covenant Israel, a time of childhood, of forming, of growing in wisdom and stature. So it’s not a halfway Covenant. It’s bootcamp. Baptism is basic rank (although it must be said this analogy is imperfect because God’s Bride is an army of the willing).
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/09/28/protesting-the-draft/
I’d say the status of children is certainly a key concern, and the faithful training of children in church is crucial. But it is not related to baptism.
All this came out of my observation of the use of the matrix through the Old Testament, and then what the book of Acts and the epistles do with it. Day 2 is the construction of the Veil, the “setting apart” or betrothal. Day 6 is the open Veil, the Bride ready for marriage. Jordan says that birth is the betrothal and paedobaptism is the wedding. But the Biblical structure seems to be that being under Law is the betrothal and baptism is the wedding. The Old Covenant arranged the marriage in childhood. The New Covenant consummated it. Raising kids in Christian homes and in church is not the marriage, and this confusion is what gets the TRs hackles up (I guess). They are using the sign of Day 6, the head and body standing before God for judgment, for Day 2, the cutting of flesh. I hope that makes sense. Paedobaptism confuses the “taking out of the world for training and transforming” with the “putting back into the world for government.” Israel’s laver was supposed to be the Red Sea, but they acted like cowardly children instead of men, and had to go through the entire process again, with the Jordan as Laver. I believe this is why Confirmation was introduced, as mentioned above. There was a felt need for a rite that says, “You are a knight.”
Regarding the oath, the matrix corresponds to both the Covenant structure and the Lord’s service. So the Oath/Sanctions is Laver/Open Veil/Atonement/crystal sea/baptism. Communion bridges this with the doxology/rest/Tabernacles/Continuity. This typological correspondence can certainly be disputed, but it appears in the Bible a thousand times. I believe it is inescapable.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Dr Leithart’s post illustrates my point exactly. Articulating a consistent paedobaptist theology causes problems because paedobaptism is not consistent with the Bible. If you hammer a square peg into a round hole it’s going to wreck the game. There’s nothing wrong with the peg or the hole. It’s just that they were not made for each other. Infant baptism might be beautiful, as Travis said a while back. But an ordained woman preaching can be beautiful. A same-sex marriage can be beautiful. These are joinings-together, but only by the will of man. (I know that sounds offensive, but I’m trying to make a point. I’m not saying an infant baptism is an abomination, nor a woman preaching. But these things end in confusion and barrenness.)
January 24th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Mike,
Whoa, it’s possible this has been discussed in the prolific posts previously postulated. Pity me, I pause at their prolixity. Anyway:
you write: Hi Doug
Law and Grace, forming and filling, flesh and Spirit. Infants might be in the king’s house, but baptism is for those who can say, as warrior-bride approaching the king’s court, “If I perish, I perish.”
Good onya
. . . yep, that’s what the babies, the little ones who behold His face say: From My mother’s womb You have been My God. To confess God as ‘my God’ is to be that warrior bride, saying ‘if I perish, I perish’
Best wishes, bro.
Doug
January 24th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Doug
Both this instance and the one in Psalm 71 are entirely passive. If you look carefully, Psalm 22 follows the matrix. When does David declare God’s name to the assembly, in the midst of the brethren? After the fiery testing by the Spirit. After his declaration he pays his vows before those who fear him. Of course, these types are all Old Covenant. After the oath comes succession. In the New Covenant, succession is not flesh, but flesh-filled Spirit, which only comes by the hearing of the Word.
If David was confessing as he came out of the womb, I might give you a point.
January 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Thanks Mike. I have an answer, but it may be to the wrong question. So – does Psalm 22 say that preborn infants are believers who trust in God (but they just shouldn’t be baptized)? Or is there nothing in Ps. 22 and Eph. 6 that says children are the disciples who are to be baptized (Mt. 28)?
(What I’m fishing for is whether we disagree primarily on whether baptism is for mature, adult Christians who have met the bar, or whether we are disagreeing about the promise of God to be God to the children of believers is still in effect.
Dunno if that made sense; might not, given the hour of night it is here.
Blessings,
Doug
Blessings,
Doug
January 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I think Psalm 22 supports what I have been saying: that childhood is a time of forming, a time when we learn to trust. David’s question is basically, “God, you taught me to trust on my mother’s breast. What was the point of that if you are not here for me when I need you?” So when Jesus says that kingdom of heaven belongs to such, he is commending the faith of children in their teachers as a model for an adult faith in God. It’s really not that hard!
Children are taught to trust at home and in church. When the lights go on, and you identify the desire, baptize them. Don’t apply the warrior’s vow to babes. They have no armor.
Even the armor follows the structure, with the helmet of salvation – the High Priest’s forehead – at Conquest. The armor is mediatorial.
Timothy was Paul’s “son.” That is New Covenant childhood. But it was the fulfilment, the increase, of an Old Covenant childhood – under the graceful teaching of the Law.