Shakin’ the Tree
The debate over infant baptism at Doug Wilson’s blog continues. Pastor Wilson writes:
“The Gentiles were threatened with removal from the same tree the unbelieving Jews had been in. But if this were the tree of salvation, then the elect can lose their salvation — which cannot be defended biblically. And if this is the tree of the covenant, then the point stands” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 36)
This looks logical enough, but trees are a process of maturity, from seed to fruit. So is righteousness, and so is sin.
Israel was a trunk, a single genealogy stuck, stationary, in one plot of Land. Her history follows the feasts (see Bible Matrix, p. 189-191). In this structure, the coming of Christ brought the final harvest, Booths.
After Jesus’ Day of Atonement (tasting the cup for potential poison, for every man) there was wine for every man, both Jew and Gentile. The Jew-Gentile God-fest came after this High Priestly Day. All nations could now be Booths, as predicted by Zechariah.
During the Restoration era, the tree trunk sprouted branches, and when the Christ came He was looking for fruit. By and large, all He found was an Adam hiding in leaves.
What does a good farmer do? He cuts off the fruitless branches and, in this case, grafts in some stronger, wild ones, just as Rahab and Ruth were grafted in to bring new life to a weakly, inbred, barren tree.
Why was the tree weak? Not because of obedience, but because of disobedience. The Jews became elitist instead of being a house of prayer. They should have been made strong as the nations came to them for Atonement and shelter (Booths). But they came to rely on the empire instead of God for their strength.
In Romans, Paul refers to the Feast of Booths. The fruitless were cut off. Ingrafting requires two cuts: one of the tree (Christ) and one of the new branch. This second cutting was repentance.
Under the Old Covenant, males could be grafted in by circumcision, by adherence to the Law. But it was not about branches. Worship was fleshly and central. It was all about the trunk, about Israel connected to the Land. Males became part of that tree trunk that was always destined to be cut for the sake of the nations.
But, as with a tree, the Covenant grew up, from earthly country to heavenly country. Adam was a singular trunk. Eve is multiplied branches (and I reckon we can also see this in Old Covenant “singular,” stationary scrolls with wooden rollers and New Covenant, portable codices with many “leaves.”) Repentance and baptism grafts us in as branches.
Circumcision had been able to graft Gentiles in as part of the “fleshly” trunk. That was no longer possible because the Covenant had changed. Even when Jews were grafted back in, they had to be repentant. This, too, is no longer possible as there are, Covenantally, no more Jews (being a Jew was a priestly office which was decommissioned in AD70.) If Gentiles (and, logically, there are no more Gentiles either) were cut off because of unbelief, such a cutting came after harvest time. They were cut off because of lack of fruit. We see Jesus, the gardener, pruning the Lamp-trees in Revelation 2-3, warning the pastors that those baby sins would grow to resemble the eighth church He was about to judge, Old Covenant Israel. Paul’s context here is entirely first century. We can apply it now, through church discipline. We see an application of it in the Reformation, another harvest time.
So, under the Old Covenant, this tree was a promise of shelter and fruit. The stump was good, but as it turned out, not all the branches were. The New Covenant is not a trunk, it is a shelter, a Booth.
Covenant membership of infants is trunk stuff. Not only was it Adamic (males) but trunk stuff is over. We are into branch stuff, Eve, the history of a mature Covenant people post-Wedding Supper.
We have no business baptizing babies because they have not repented, they show no fruits of repentance, and they provide no shelter. The requirement for a New Covenant grafting in is repentance and faith. History has moved on, as trees tend to do. Salvation by faith has been constant, but the Old Covenant genealogical tree trunk has become a tree of salvation. The change in the requirements for membership, and in the Covenant sign, reflect this. Jesus can now have a branch in every neighborhood.
Are our babies left out in the cold? No. They shelter under the Covenant tree, “sanctified,” set apart, until they can be grafted in.
_________________________________
Art by Erica Maule
Related posts on the Feast of Booths:
A Place Called Clouds
Time to Party – 1, 2 and 3
Seven Thousand Who Have Not Bowed to Baal – 2
June 9th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Mike,
Greetings in Christ! In my first attempts to respond, I noticed I left my filters for clarity and winsomeness at home, so I’m just going to mention that I don’t believe that your views are doing justice to the promise of God in Gen 17:7 to Abraham to be God to him and his descendants. One might say yabbut, Abraham’s descendants are now only those who come in by adult faith, but the chain from Gen 17:7 to Exodus 20:2 and 20:12 to Eph. 6:1-3 shows that (notwithstanding the changing of epochs) God’s promise to be God to the belivers’ children — in the same way that He is God to Abraham — still stands. Which means that our children presently, even as infants, possess and are possessed of God as their God. Thus they do things like “believe in Me [Jesus]” (Matt. 18:6) and leap for joy within the womb (“the baby in my womb leaped for joy” Lk. 1:44)
Come to think of it, Psalm 128:3 tells us that children aren’t trunky, but branchy – they are “olive shoots” (actually, ‘olive cuttings’ like in the Romans passage.) So no, covenant membership has always been branch stuff.
Blessings on your house, and may your wife be a fruitful vine and your children be like olive shoots around the table!
Doug Roorda
——Scripture quotations below——–
Genesis 17:7-9: “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham: As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations”
Exodus 20:1, 12
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. . . . Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.”
Eph. 6:1-3 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.” [caps used in NASB to show scripture quotations]
Ps. 128:3 (ESV, because it gets the “shoots” translation right) “your children will be like olive shoots around your table”
June 9th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Thanks Doug
I’ve covered this elsewhere – a Christian baby is not a baby Christian, as someone wisely commented on Doug’s blog.
Sure, kids are branchy, but the Bible works in fractals. The big picture is sons of God, not sons of men. The pictures are good, but they are pictures.
June 9th, 2011 at 2:53 am
Mike,
PS I posted essentially the same thing over at DW’s blog.
June 10th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Mike, you wrote: “a Christian baby is not a baby Christian.”
Mine are. And so are all the ones in the church I pastor. =)
June 10th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Or am I misunderstanding you, Mike? To put my comment another way, I believe that my children are as much Christians as I am and have been since conception. Does that make things clearer?
June 10th, 2011 at 8:01 am
John, that’s exactly what we have been debating. As I said in another post, God brings new life out of wombs and out of tombs; there are parallels, but they are not the same.
June 10th, 2011 at 8:18 am
I realize that’s what you’ve been debating. You made an assertion (“a Christian baby is not a baby Christian”) and I countered with assertion (“Are too!”). Neither statement, of course, is an argument.
But I’m not absolutely sure what you mean when you say “a Christian baby is not a baby Christian,” so clarification of that point would probably help me. What’s the distinction you’re making?
I’m afraid, too, that I don’t understand the wombs/tombs comment either. And I suppose understanding should have preceded my response.
June 10th, 2011 at 8:23 am
The womb is natural. The tomb is supernatural, or spiritual. i.e. you have lived before, and died under the Law, and now rule with Christ. Click the baptism tag under the post if you would like to read more. I do plan on putting this into one essay or book at some stage. That will make it easier to torch.
June 10th, 2011 at 8:32 am
I guess while I’m asking for clarification, I could add to the list the following:
* You write: “Under the Old Covenant … Worship was fleshly and central.” What does “fleshly and central” mean here? Do you mean “centralized,” such that an Israelite had to travel to the one central location in order to draw near to God? If so, I understand that. But what about “fleshly”?
* “Males became part of that tree trunk that was always destined to be cut for the sake of the nations.” Do you believe that females weren’t part of the trunk? I see that later on you say that Eve is “branches.” So do you see males as trunk and women as branches? I just need a lot of clarification on this point and what it might mean, I guess.
* You write: “Covenant membership of infants is trunk stuff.” I don’t see how this follows from anything you’ve said.
* You write: “Not only was it Adamic (males) but trunk stuff is over. We are into branch stuff, Eve, the history of a mature Covenant people post-Wedding Supper.” Again, I don’t see how this follows from what you’ve said.
* You write: “We have no business baptizing babies because they have not repented, they show no fruits of repentance, and they provide no shelter.” But you seem to be assuming that these are the requirements. You don’t provide (as far as I can see) an argument for this point.
Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Maybe I’m missing the actual argument for these points completely. But it seems to me, from where I’m standing, that you’re making assertions, not arguments. So I welcome your clarification.
By the way, Mike, if you’re not a paedobaptist, it would follow that you’re not a paedocommunionist either. Is that correct?
June 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Hi John
The Old Covenant did contain pictures of the New. So females were a part of the trunk. Bt they didn’t receive the sign because it was the “trunk” Covenant. Christ’s death finished that. AD70, the wedding supper, finished off the Circumcision.
The requirements for baptism are made clear in the New Testament. They are spiritual requirements: internal Spirit. The requirements for the Old were external compliances – cutting of flesh of the males and of the substitutionary animals.
If a child has repented and believed and been baptized (in that order), they certainly qualify for communion.
It’s forming and filling, John. We can’t baptize infants because they are not filled, whatever we might claim. They don’t inherit anything from us but Adam, until they are brought to Christ by the gospel-law being preached to them.
June 10th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Hm. I’m afraid your answer simply raises more questions in my mind:
* You write: “The requirements for baptism are made clear in the New Testament. They are spiritual requirements: internal Spirit. The requirements for the Old were external compliances – cutting of flesh of the males and of the substitutionary animals.”
But here, you seem to be contrasting two things that aren’t parallel: “internal Spirit” vs. circumcision. But we’re talking about the requirements for baptism and the parallel ought to be requirements for circumcision. Circumcision can’t be listed as one of the requirements for circumcision. Does that make sense?
Furthermore, I’m not persuaded of (nor have you provided argument for) the claim that the NT requirements for baptism are “spiritual requirements: internal Spirit.”
* I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re getting at when you speak of “forming and filling”: “We can’t baptize infants because they are not filled.”
* You say, “They don’t inherit anything from us but Adam, until they are brought to Christ by the gospel-law being preached to them.” It seems to me that my infant children were brought to Christ. But if I give that response, you’ll point to the last part of the sentence, and I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by it: “by the gospel-law being preached to them.”
I teach my children to sing Psalm 22 (“You made me trust while on my mother’s breasts”). But on your view, that’s Old Covenant trunk stuff, not something that we, as New Covenant believers, ought to teach our children to sing. Right?
June 10th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Hi John
Briefly
1 Old Covenant membership required outward compliance, like childhood. The New not only requires an inward motivation, but supplies this by the Spirit.
2 Every baptism in the NT concerns repentance and faith. Every single one. It does not parallel circumcision but priestly washings. It is not death but resurrection. It is now a priesthood of all believers. Membership has moved (or expanded) to allow the plebs beyond the Altar, through the Laver to the Incense Altar, as wise elders.
3 Adam was formed and then filled. Likewise, a Covenant was formed when he received the Law. If he had obeyed he would have received the Spirit, been filled. The entire history follows this pattern. The Law brought us to Christ. His death allowed the Spirit to fall on every believer. Bringing a baby for sprinkling is not bringing someone to Christ. God won’t accept raw meat. It has to have been transformed by holy fire. Our babies can be set apart (sanctified) as Israel was, but that’s simply not what baptism is for. The Laver is for priests, mediators. Only the repentant, Spirit-filled believer can mediate the gospel as the “dead living”.
4 The Spirit is not inherited. Nor is the Spirit given at baptism. Repentance, faith, Spirit, baptism. Infants don’t qualify.
5 Psalm 22 shows that human parenting pictures God’s parenting. As children, we trust our parents. It’s trainer wheels. That’s how God intended things to be. But faith in our parents is not faith in God. Christian parents mediate the gospel to their kids, but this in itself is not salvation. So keep singing it, for sure. But it’s no support for paedobaptism. Circumcision was about setting flesh apart for sacrifice. ALL flesh is now set apart in this way, all infants, every nation. But baptism is for the mature. It’s for the stage when we ask for the car keys.
6 The simplest way to look at this is using the matrix. Circumcision is Division. Baptism is Conquest. Circumcision gets the meat out of the fridge and cuts it up. Baptism is for the cooked meal on the table, presented to the king and ready for service, for ministry.
June 11th, 2011 at 3:06 am
Mike,
Thanks for all your work, and your insights – I really enjoy the chance to read and discuss these things.
In trying to understand the nature of what it is we don’t mutually understand, I want to ask about a couple of things. First, your comment to John: “They don’t inherit anything from us but Adam, until they are brought to Christ by the gospel-law being preached to them.”
So — regarding ‘inheritance from parents’ – this doesn’t seem to me to be what the paedobaptists are saying. I wouldn’t claim that my children get anything but sin from me – /but rather/ I claim that God has promised to /them/ to be their God, and addresses them as His own children, with language identical to how he addresses adult believers.
So if it is your understanding that the PBs believe that salvation is a sort of ‘fleshly inheritance’ [not trying to put words in your mouth, please clarify if that is not precisely what you mean] from the parents, I could see your difficulty. But a fleshly inheritance is quite different from the gracious promise of God to be God to our descendants. Am I understanding this aspect of your concern correctly?
———————
Now for question two [quoting again]: “The Laver is for priests, mediators. Only the repentant, Spirit-filled believer can mediate the gospel as the “dead living”.
From my understanding of the scriptures I don’t see a problem with infants doing this. If an unborn babe can leap for joy at the presence of the savior, why should there be a problem with infants being repentant or Spirit filled? Jesus tells us (giving us an authoritative application of Psalm 8) that God has ordained praise from the mouths of infants and nursing babies. And he tells us that “these little ones . . . believe in Me” (
I can’t agree with your take on Psalm 22 either. “Psalm 22 shows that human parenting pictures God’s parenting. As children, we trust our parents. It’s trainer wheels.”
Well, perhaps verse 9 alone might support what you are saying – “[you made me trust my mommy]” but verse 10 (“You have been my God from my mother’s womb”) ties it right back together with Gen 17 (“I will God to you and your descendants after you” and Exodus 20:1 (“I am the LORD your God”). In other words, David is claiming that God’s covenant promise of salvation and blessing extended to him in the womb, and that the promise was personally his: ([again:]“You have been my God from my mother’s womb”). (Cf. Thomas’s confession “my Lord and my God!”). And Jesus cautions us not to despise those children, not “who trust mommy” but “who believe in Him” (Mark 9:36-42, Matt. 18:6).
———
So let me be explicit: how can the promise “I will be your God” be applied differently to children than it is to adults? If God is /my/ God from the womb, who may tell me He isn’t?
And then it works out into the raising of our children: We take two year old Suzie into our arms and teach her to pray “Dear Jesus, thank you for saving me. Help me obey Mommy. I’m sorry I fussed at her.” and then we assure her that God loves her, forgives her, and she can trust Him!
————–
Anyway, Mike, if I have left anything out or am being unclear, let me know – have to run right now and may well have left something unedited or infelicitous. Blessings on your house, and thank you for graciously hosting this discussion!
===============================
——-Scripture References———
Matt. 21:14-16 And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 1But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant and said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus *said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’?”
———
Psalm 22:9-10 Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb.
———-
Gen 17:7-8 I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
—–
Exodus 20:1-2 Then God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”
———
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
——–
Mark 9:36-37, 42 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me. . . . “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
——
Matthew 18:1-6, 10 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. . . . 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
June 11th, 2011 at 3:55 am
PS the smiley face up there was unintentional. I wrote [Psalm eight] but when you put 8 with ) you get 8).
So don’t expect any more smileys from me.
June 11th, 2011 at 3:55 am
err, 8)
June 11th, 2011 at 6:45 am
Mike –
Thanks for the responses. I’ll piggyback on what Doug wrote, too. But here are a few more of my comments in response to you:
> 1 Old Covenant membership required
> outward compliance, like childhood.
> The New not only requires an inward
> motivation, but supplies this by the
> Spirit.
So you say. But you haven’t demonstrated this point. Furthermore, in the Old Covenant as well, someone who didn’t respond to God in faith was a covenant breaker and was cut off. So the Old Covenant, too, required faith, just as much as the New does.
> 2 Every baptism in the NT concerns
> repentance and faith. Every single
> one.
I’m not sure what “concerns” means here. Perhaps you mean that in every baptism that we see in Scripture, a person repents and then is baptized.
That’s true as far as it goes. But notice that all of the baptisms we see in Scripture are baptisms of brand new converts. (Oh, except that we also hear that the entire household was baptized, too.)
We don’t see any examples of “Timothy had a baby. Now what?” All we have are “Simon was converted and repented and was baptized.”
> It does not parallel circumcision
> but priestly washings.
Not just priestly washings. It also parallels the cleansing from leprosy and the cleansing of those who have touched dead bodies.
Did children ever touch the dead bodies of their parents in the Bible? I’m sure that must have happened at some point. And if it did, they would have been BAPTIZED in order to be resurrected back into the community at the end of seven days.
> It is not death but resurrection.
Uh huh. And kids were resurrected through baptism in the Old Covenant, too.
> It is now a priesthood of all
> believers. Membership has moved
> (or expanded) to allow the plebs
> beyond the Altar, through the
> Laver to the Incense Altar, as
> wise elders.
Expanded, yes. But your argument is precisely that at the same time that membership has expanded it has also contracted: kids used to be included, but now they are banned.
> 3 Adam was formed and then filled.
I don’t know what this means.
> Likewise, a Covenant was formed
> when he received the Law.
Who is “he”? Adam? He was created in covenant with God.
> If he had obeyed he would have
> received the Spirit, been
> filled. The entire history
> follows this pattern. The Law
> brought us to Christ. His
> death allowed the Spirit to
> fall on every believer.
Well, actually in Acts 2, the Spirit falls on the whole church, every last person who was in the room. The burden of proof is on you if you want to maintain that there were no children in that room.
> Bringing a baby for sprinkling
> is not bringing someone to Christ.
Sez you. =) I sez it is.
> God won’t accept raw meat. It has
> to have been transformed by holy
> fire.
Don’t know how this applies.
> Our babies can be set apart
> (sanctified) as Israel was,
> but that’s simply not what
> baptism is for.
“Holy” in the Bible has to do with access to God. The holy vessels are the ones that can draw near to God. The priests are holier than Israel = they can draw near to God in a way Israel can’t. The high priest is holier than the priests = he can draw nearer to God than they can. Our children are holy = they can draw near to God. How? Having their bodies washed with clean water (Heb 10).
> The Laver is for priests, mediators.
> Only the repentant, Spirit-filled
> believer can mediate the gospel as
> the “dead living”.
“Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have ordained strength because of the enemy.”
> 4 The Spirit is not inherited.
No one has ever said that.
> Nor is the Spirit given at baptism.
Well, that’s what Peter says on Pentecost. “Repent and be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what Paul says happens in baptism: “By one Spirit you were baptized into one body” — and then he starts saying that every member of the church has gifts from that Spirit.
> Repentance, faith, Spirit, baptism.
That’s precisely NOT the order of Acts 2: “… Be baptized and you will receive the Spirit.”
> 5 Psalm 22 shows that human parenting
> pictures God’s parenting. As children,
> we trust our parents. It’s trainer
> wheels. That’s how God intended
> things to be.
At what age can a child begin to trust? From the moment of birth at least (though I think they trust much earlier than that). My baby daughter trusted her mother from the very beginning of her life. So infants are fully capable of faith … and God is closer to my daughter than her mother ever was.
> But faith in our parents is not
> faith in God.
Psalm 22 isn’t speaking of faith in our parents. As Doug said, the context says, “From birth you have been my God.”
> Christian parents mediate the
> gospel to their kids, but this
> in itself is not salvation. So
> keep singing it, for sure. But
> it’s no support for paedobaptism.
What my children sing in Psalm 22 is that from birth YHWH has been their God, and He has taught them to trust HIM while on their mother’s breasts.
> But baptism is for the mature.
In the words of Mark Horne, “Is God the God of the Mature Professing Believer Only?” Surely not. Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants.
> It’s for the stage when we ask for
> the car keys.
In the Garden, Adam was given access to the Tree of Life. Only when he matured (“the stage when we ask for the car keys”) would he have been given access to the TOTKOGAE. The Tree of Life required no maturation at all.
But you are making the Tree of Life the equivalent of the TOTKOGAE, so that only the mature can attain union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, and life itself.
Au contraire. From the beginning of their life, our children, like Adam, are given access to Christ, the Tree of Life. No maturity required.
> 6 The simplest way to look at this
> is using the matrix. Circumcision
> is Division. Baptism is Conquest.
Well, Mike. Before this argument can persuade me, I first need to be persuaded of the “Bible Matrix.” At this point, having read Bible Matrix and most of Totus Christus, I’m not.
> Circumcision gets the meat out of
> the fridge and cuts it up. Baptism
> is for the cooked meal on the table,
> presented to the king and ready
> for service, for ministry.
Again, these are assertions, not arguments.
Thanks again for the vigorous interaction! Blessings!
June 11th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I’ll try to answer these objections and questions as briefly as possible. For those new here, some of this stuff has been covered before in the comments under here:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/01/20/rise-of-the-uberbaptist/
DOUG
Inheritance from Parents
The promise was to Abraham’s seed. The boundary of flesh was the border of Israel. That boundary is now obsolete because the whole world is now commanded to repent, and approach under the blood of a more perfect sacrifice.
If you want a ceremony to celebrate your commitment to raise a child in a godly home, have a baby dedication. Circumcision was never about this anyway, unless the baby girls didn’t count.
LEAPING IN THE WOMB
Under the Old Covenant, the Spirit came upon certain men to perform certain tasks. Infant John was a miraculous sign. We don’t claim that Christian children are born of barren women, or of virgins. This simply isn’t evidence of “infant conversion.”
PSALM 8
I have covered this one a number of times.
I prefer the RSV rendering of Psalm 8:
“O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted by the mouth of babes and infants, thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.”
Moving forward in history, Jesus quotes this text in the context of children singing hosannas. Moving backward in history, it most likely refers to Deuteronomy 31:21:
“And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.”
All of which supports instilling the Law of Love into our children (forming). I’m sure many of us knew Bible verses by rote before we really understood what they meant? Baptism is for when we UNDERSTAND what they mean, when the Spirit joins the dots and gives us His eyes, the mind of Christ.
The children singing Hosannas condemned the unbelief of the Jewish leaders. It has nothing to do with Spirit-filling or conversion and everything to do with Covenant childrearing. They are not the same thing.
Psalm 22 I have also covered before (see link above). If paedobaptists weren’t desperate for evidence, no one would read this text in this manner. Sure, David could look back and see God’s hand on his life from the womb. I myself can also do so – but only because I am converted. It doesn’t mean we can claim this for every infant and baptize them as if they are believers.
I have also covered what Jesus meant by childlike faith. The faith of a child in its parents is LIKE the faith I am to have in God. They are not the same thing. Otherwise every child in the fallen world has saving faith in God. Ah! But are they baptized? That makes them “Covenant babies.”
No. Circumcision made all Israelite males into living sacrifices. It symbolized death. Baptism is a promise of resurrection, not salvation. It is only for those who have already been made living sacrifices by repentance and faith, under the blood of Christ. Infant baptism is making a promise to infants that cannot be kept. They don’t qualify.
Your other examples are confusing Christian parenting with a rite that is for the converted. Baptize Suzie when she professes faith.
Re Mark 9, if a child believes, it is not a baby. All these children set before Him seem to have legs of their own. Yes, they have angels, because they are children. They need guardians. Baptism IS FOR GUARDIANS on the crystal sea, who see the face of God continually. We are the New Covenant angels.
JOHN
Outward Compliance
If you kept the Law, who cared what was in your heart? I know it’s not that cut and dried, because the Old Covenant process was a gradual maturity, but Jesus makes a big point about internal compliance.
Covenant breakers were not those who failed to respond in faith. External compliance was supposed to LEAD to faith. The Pharisees had mastered the externals. Jesus changed the rules, raised the bar, and the Pharisees failed to rise to the occasion. They blasphemed, cursed, the Spirit of God who would enable them to keep the Law.
Households
Was everyone in Abraham’s household circumcised? No. The females weren’t. They didn’t qualify. This is not evidence for paedobaptism.
Washings
That doesn’t leave any baptisms that did not require repentance. Did people bring their babies to John in the Jordan for baptism? Of course not. Thinking of it that way might help PBs break the hold of this strange paradigm.
Sure, a child might have touched a dead body, but was a child permitted to serve in the Tabernacle? Baptism is certainly linked to the washings commanded of all Israel, but more narrowly to the Laver used by the priests. Just about every baptism passage in Acts (if not all of them) uses the Bible Matrix, and the baptism occurs at the Laver/Conquest/Atonement: Day 6 – Adam and Eve with no kids. I think Luke was trying to tell us something.
Expansion and Contraction
The “flesh” boundary of the Covenant is now instruction of ALL nations. The “Spirit” boundary of the Covenant is now males and females serving in the court of God. There is no contraction. Paedobaptism conflates these two boundaries.
Adam Formed and Filled
Adam was formed from the dust, then filled with the breath of life. That does follow the Covenant pattern. But he was not a “Federal Head” until he received the Law. Like the Pharisees, he blasphemed the Spirit and missed out on Pentecost. My new book covers this in more detail.
Acts 2
The Spirit only falls on those who have received the Law and believed it. Infants don’t qualify.
Bringing A Baby for Sprinkling
Bringing someone to Christ is bringing someone to faith. If they believe, they confess with their mouth. I don’t think bubs as any idea what’s going on, do you? Like I said, this confuses the “flesh” boundary with the boundary of “Spirit-filled” flesh. Not good. And it’s probably why the phrase “born again” was introduced. I have relatives who say they are Christian. What they mean is that they are not Muslim. Paedobaptism helps make such confusion possible.
Raw Meat
Again, in the new book. We have moved from Bronze Altar to Golden Altar, from raw meat (Adam) to fragrant smoke (Eve).
Out of the Mouths of Babes
Terrible exegesis. See above.
“Holy”
Israel was set apart, sanctified, but they weren’t all holy. If this “clean water” is so magical, we should be calling everyone to washed in it, including unbelieving adults. I don’t go for the gnostic idea that baptism is just an external sign (a la PJLeithart). But neither can I accept that this water makes unrepentant (i.e. uncut, unbloodied) flesh acceptable to God. Circumcision of heart has to come first. Infants don’t qualify.
Spirit Not Inherited
OK. But then why all this talk of “paedofaith”? Perhaps I don’t understand it properly, but the idea seems contrived to support this doctrine, based on dodgy exegesis of a handful of irrelevant texts that speak about children. As I’ve said before, this twisting of texts (or wringing them for something they can’t give) is out of character for you FV gents.
Acts 2 again
Repentance and baptism qualified them for the Spirit. But this was like Jesus’ baptism. It was new, and it was a command to “Old Covenant” Jews to REPENT. Hardly evidence for paedobaptism.
Infant Trust
See comments to Doug above. Once again, with all due respect, all this talk of baby trust, and PJL’s “Do baptists talk to their babies?” is quite ridiculous. Do Muslims talk to their babies? Yes, of course they do. It’s irrelevant. Being born is not the same as being born again. Let me write that again because you gents don’t seem to get it. Being born is not the same as being born again. One is forming. One is filling. One is womb, one is tomb. One is binding under the curse of the Law (circumcision) and one is loosing from the curse of the Law (baptism). This puts he so-called “New Covenant curses” in context. Sure, God judges us for sin, as any good dad. But this is not the judgment of death and disinheritance experienced under the Old Covenant.
“Is God the God of the Mature Professing Believer Only?”
No. He is the God of every man, woman and child on the planet. The boundary of flesh now demands that ALL come to repentance and faith. Jesus died for all.
Tree of Life
Adam was immature, but he was fully grown. He was called to spiritual, not physical, maturity at that instant. He had heard the Law and was called to obey it. Infancy is irrelevant here. If Adam had crushed the serpent, he would have qualified for the Tree of Wisdom, the “wine.” Baptism is for serpent crushers. I believe Adam would have invited Eve to put her foot on the neck of the beast also once the Holy Place was safe, as co-mediator. That’s why males and females can be baptized. The Holy Place is now safe for Eve. But there’s still not a bubba in sight. Babies don’t crush serpents. They can only touch snake dens when the mediators have made Creation safe. Baptism is for serpent crushers, for knights, for those who have been trained AND vindicated by the Spirit. How do you “test the spirit” of the an infant?
Bible Matrix
Fair enough. But I’ve found that some people get it and some don’t. Those who tend to think “in pictures” get it straight away. So, some adults do. Most children do, if not all. At the very least, there is a definite movement from Creation (initiation) to Glorification (rule). PJL was convinced enough to write a foreword for it, and JBJ highly recommended it. But there are other theologians I respect who have questioned it. Not everyone thinks visually. We all have our different gifts.
And my reference here simply corresponded the approach to God through the Tabernacle with the Ascension rite in Leviticus one. The “baptism” as in those chapters in Acts, comes towards the end. It is extremely consistent.
Thanks for the discussion.
Kind regards,
Mike
June 12th, 2011 at 12:58 am
I’ve alluded to this before, elsewhere, but I would still love to hear Rev. Jordan’s own rebuttal to Mr. Bull’s (no minor) tweaking of the BH paradigm. At least, I’m assuming he would not be in agreement on this application of the BH matrix. Has there been any response out there from either Dr. Leithart or Rev. Jordan to Mr. Bull’s arguments? If Mr. Bull’s arguments could withstand that level of scrutiny, he might just convince some of the FV crowd after all.
June 12th, 2011 at 1:09 am
That sounds a little like I’m disparaging Pastor Barach’s and Mr. Roorda’s own rebuttals, which I am most definitely not. To the contrary, finally, a much needed, helpful response to Mr. Bull! There are more FV-leaning (paedo/credo) fence-sitters like me out here waiting/watching. This helps. Thank you all!
June 12th, 2011 at 1:21 am
Hi Todd
I think the problem is that they see the “BH paradigm” as supporting paedobaptism, and I see it as contradicting it. Either way, if my responses get people thinking by incorporating typology into the baptist side of the debate, the results will be beneficial for all. It will either break some FV teeth or sharpen them! But it’s certainly not going to help the FV detractors, for whom I have little appreciation (doctrinally). Jordan, Leithart and Wilson have very different skills, but they all love the Bible and are willing to say some tough things. They’ve changed my thinking entirely over the past few years on many issues. But not on this one, and it’s simply because I can’t get it to fit into the rest of the framework without a heck of a lot of Spakfilla, gaffer tape, crunching of Bible Matrix gears, plus some gooey sentimentality over babies. But that’s just me. And I’ve been wrong before. Haven’t we all?
Thanks for the comment!
June 15th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Mike –
Sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you:
> Outward Compliance
>
> If you kept the Law, who cared what
> was in your heart?
God did. He says so repeatedly. He tells Israel that he hates their feasts (the ones He Himself commanded) because their hearts are far from him.
> Jesus makes a big point about
> internal compliance.
So does Moses when he urges people to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts (Deut 10:16).
> Covenant breakers were not those
> who failed to respond in faith.
Sure they were. Hebrews 4:1 says that those who perished in the wilderness and didn’t inherit the land were those who didn’t receive the promise “mixed with faith.”
> External compliance was supposed
> to LEAD to faith.
Sure. And flow out of faith. Both.
> Households
>
> Was everyone in Abraham’s household
> circumcised? No. The females
> weren’t. They didn’t qualify. This
> is not evidence for paedobaptism.
Why not?
> Washings
>
> That doesn’t leave any baptisms
> that did not require repentance.
> Did people bring their babies to
> John in the Jordan for baptism?
> Of course not.
Why not?
> Sure, a child might have touched
> a dead body, but was a child
> permitted to serve in the Tabernacle?
A child — even an infant — who touched a dead body would have been baptized on the third and seventh day so that he could be “resurrected” into the community of God’s people again.
No, a child wouldn’t be a priest. But a child would nevertheless be holy: The priests’ children got to eat the holy food that only priests can eat. Therefore they also had to undergo the cleansing rituals — baptisms — if they became unclean.
> Baptism is certainly linked to
> the washings commanded of all
> Israel, but more narrowly to
> the Laver used by the priests.
Fine. But we learn about the meaning of baptism, not only from the laver but also from all the other “baptisms” (Heb 9) of the Old Covenant.
> Just about every baptism passage
> in Acts (if not all of them) uses
> the Bible Matrix, and the baptism
> occurs at the Laver/Conquest/
> Atonement: Day 6 – Adam and
> Eve with no kids. I think Luke
> was trying to tell us something.
Again, I’m unpersuaded of the Bible Matrix itself, so this argument doesn’t help me.
> Expansion and Contraction
>
> The “flesh” boundary of the Covenant
> is now instruction of ALL nations.
I’m sorry. This isn’t clear to me. Could you please explain what you mean?
> The “Spirit” boundary of the Covenant
> is now males and females serving in
> the court of God. There is no
> contraction. Paedobaptism conflates
> these two boundaries.
I’m still not understanding what you mean. Could you please try again? I must be missing something here.
> Adam Formed and Filled
>
> Adam was formed from the dust,
> then filled with the breath of life.
> That does follow the Covenant
> pattern. But he was not a
> “Federal Head” until he received
> the Law.
I’m sorry. You’ll have to explain this, as well. It seems to me that he was precisely a federal head. It’s Adam’s sin that brings death to the human race (Rom 5), including Woman. So he was functioning as her head at the time, and death spreads to her as the result of one man’s disobedience.
> Acts 2
>
> The Spirit only falls on those
> who have received the Law and
> believed it. Infants don’t qualify.
But you’ve missed part of my point. In your comment above, you said that the Scriptural order was repent – faith – Spirit – baptism. But in Acts 2, that’s precisely not the order. Baptism precedes Spirit in Acts 2.
I’m not sure why you say “Infants don’t qualify.” Peter says otherwise: “The promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN.”
> Bringing A Baby for Sprinkling
>
> Bringing someone to Christ is
> bringing someone to faith.
Is it?
> If they believe, they confess
> with their mouth. I don’t think
> bubs as any idea what’s going
> on, do you?
This kind of wooden application of what Paul says in Romans 10 would mean that someone who is mute can’t be saved since, after all, he can’t confess with the mouth.
Furthermore, even if you don’t want to be THAT strict, it would also preclude, not only infants, but the mentally handicapped from salvation, since they cannot articulate their confession of faith.
> I have relatives who say they
> are Christian. What they mean
> is that they are not Muslim.
> Paedobaptism helps make such
> confusion possible.
Hm. I find this approach quite helpful. If someone is baptized and in good standing in a church, I regard him as a Christian.
> Raw Meat
>
> Again, in the new book. We have
> moved from Bronze Altar to Golden
> Altar, from raw meat (Adam) to
> fragrant smoke (Eve).
Okay … but I have no idea how that applies to infant baptism.
> Out of the Mouths of Babes
>
> Terrible exegesis. See above.
My point was that Psalm 8 does indicate that babies and infants can “mediate the gospel” (to use you phrase). Even if they’re doing it by rote memory without full understanding.
> “Holy”
>
> Israel was set apart, sanctified,
> but they weren’t all holy.
Sure they were. Israel was the holy nation. They were the ones who had access to God, who had God dwelling in their midst.
> I don’t go for the gnostic idea
> that baptism is just an external
> sign (a la PJLeithart).
You read Leithart as saying that baptism is just an external sign?
> But neither can I accept that
> this water makes unrepentant
> (i.e. uncut, unbloodied) flesh
> acceptable to God. Circumcision
> of heart has to come first.
> Infants don’t qualify.
So you are saying that infants cannot be acceptable to God. Do you affirm the necessary corollary: All infants who die in infancy, being unacceptable to God, are damned?
> Spirit Not Inherited
>
> OK. But then why all this talk
> of “paedofaith”? Perhaps I don’t
> understand it properly, but the
> idea seems contrived to support
> this doctrine, based on dodgy
> exegesis of a handful of
> irrelevant texts that speak
> about children.
I don’t think it’s “dodgy exegesis” to take Psalm 22 as speaking of children trusting God.
Be that as it may, while I do affirm that Psalm 22 speaks of what could be called “paedofaith,” I don’t necessarily agree with everything in Rich Lusk’s book by that title, nor does my argument for infant baptism hinge on an affirmation of “paedofaith.”
> Acts 2 again
>
> Repentance and baptism qualified
> them for the Spirit. But this was
> like Jesus’ baptism. It was new,
> and it was a command to “Old
> Covenant” Jews to REPENT. Hardly
> evidence for paedobaptism.
Again, my point was not that this was evidence for paedobaptism. (The evidence for that is what Peter says later, as I mentioned above.) Rather, my point was that, contrary to what you had said, the order in Acts 2 is not Spirit – baptism but rather baptism – Spirit.
> Infant Trust
>
> See comments to Doug above.
> Once again, with all due
> respect, all this talk of
> baby trust, and PJL’s “Do
> baptists talk to their
> babies?” is quite
> ridiculous.
It’s one thing to ridicule. It’s another thing to argue. =)
> Do Muslims talk to their babies?
> Yes, of course they do. It’s
> irrelevant.
This argument is not to the point.
> Being born is not the same as
> being born again. Let me write
> that again because you gents
> don’t seem to get it. Being
> born is not the same as being
> born again.
I don’t know why you think that I would say “being born is being born again.”
> One is forming. One is filling.
> One is womb, one is tomb. One
> is binding under the curse of
> the Law (circumcision) and
> one is loosing from the curse
> of the Law (baptism).
Okay, but here we are: back at these phrases I don’t understand (womb/tomb; forming/filling). In fact, it even sounds as if you’re saying that being born (“one”) “is binding under the curse of the Law,” where being born again (“the other”) is loosing from the curse of the Law. I have no idea what this means.
> This puts he so-called “New
> Covenant curses” in context.
> Sure, God judges us for sin,
> as any good dad. But this is
> not the judgment of death and
> disinheritance experienced under
> the Old Covenant.
On the contrary, Scripture teaches (especially in Hebrews 10) that one can break the New Covenant, trampling underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he has been sanctified.
> “Is God the God of the Mature
> Professing Believer Only?”
>
> No. He is the God of every man,
> woman and child on the planet.
Not in the sense in which the question was asked. When I asked if God was the God of the mature believer only, I had in mind the sort of “being your God” that appears in the promise “I will be your God and you will be my people.” That’s not a promise that applies to every last person on earth but only to God’s special people.
> The boundary of flesh now demands
> that ALL come to repentance and
> faith.
It always did, didn’t it?
> Tree of Life
>
> Adam was immature, but he was fully
> grown. He was called to spiritual,
> not physical, maturity at that
> instant. He had heard the Law and
> was called to obey it. Infancy is
> irrelevant here. If Adam had
> crushed the serpent, he would
> have qualified for the Tree of
> Wisdom, the “wine.”
I don’t think Adam could have crushed the head of THE serpent (Satan) before he ate from the TOTKOGAE. He’s still “lower a little while than the angels.” Rather, he needed to be “crowned with glory and honor,” and only then could he be exalted over the angelic serpent, Satan. (For that matter, I’m inclined to believe that it wouldn’t have been Adam himself who dealt the final blow to Satan but rather his son, THE Son.)
> Baptism is for serpent crushers.
Why?
> Bible Matrix
>
> Fair enough. But I’ve found that
> some people get it and some
> don’t. Those who tend to think
> “in pictures” get it straight
> away. So, some adults do. Most
> children do, if not all.
Well, I’ve been reading and listening to JBJ and Leithart for a long, long time now. And I still don’t get Bible Matrix. Someday, when I have enough time, I’ll write up my critique.
Thanks for the discussion!
June 16th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Thanks John
Your responses seem to come from the assumption that paedobaptism is right, and needs to be proven otherwise. It’s not very helpful. It’s like claiming that homosexuality is OK because Jesus didn’t speak about it. An argument from silence is not an argument. What do we actually find in the New Testament?
Anyhow…
Outward Compliance
Yes, outward compliance was required once you were an Israelite. But becoming a Jew was a thing of the flesh. Becoming a Christian requires internal compliance from the start. It is a thing of the Spirit. It does not end with a circumcised heart, it begins with a circumcised heart. I will post my latest reply to Doug here shortly, which shows that these two rites work in series, not parallel.
Households
You’ll have to do better than that. The requirements for baptism are clearly spelled out. As mentioned, Luke makes a point of saying it was “men and women.” You can’t point to Abraham. That’s a boundary of flesh, the first birth, womb not tomb. This really isn’t that difficult. Let me put it this way: there’s no evidence that anyone who wasn’t repentant and had come to faith was baptized. None. Ever.
Washings
New Covenant baptism is about serving in the Tabernacle as a priest. It’s for people with clean feet who can pass through and serve, Adam and Eve on the springs of water. If I were to use your kind of argument here, I would say that people needed to be thirty before they could be baptized.
The Laver
This particular point isn’t hard to see in the book of Acts. The Laver is Day 6. Cut each baptism story into 7 equal parts and you’ll find the baptism near the end. It makes new mediators.
Boundary of Flesh
Imagine a circle within a square. The circle is the priesthood with access to the Laver. The outer boundary, the square, is the border of blood, the tribes.
Now, imagine the outer square boundary fulfilled and extended by Christ to all nations, not just Israel, all people, all infants. And imagine the circle (Laver) boundary within it extended to, not just men, but to women as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for Eve to minister also. Adam is the link to the Most Holy (up), and Eve is the link to the nations (down).
Covenant
The first Covenant was marriage. But the first broken Covenant concerned the tree. Standing as mediator of flesh was the fulfilment of marriage. But standing as mediator of the Spirit required obedience at the tree. Circumcision cuts off the flesh. Baptism vindicates the Spirit. Adam was supposed to fill the world with “Spirit-filled flesh”, but it was only flesh. That’s why the great commission was required. To fill the world of flesh with the Spirit.
To You and Your Children
Yes, and if their children didn’t believe, they were cut off. Israel was given one more generation. Jesus told the Jewish women to weep for their children. I have covered this elsewhere. It has to do with the three-decker world in the literary structure: You – hearers of the Word; Your Children – Israel in the Land (Sacrament of flesh); those afar off – Gentile court – Government. It is a call to repent and be baptize, not to go around baptizing everyone because all are now true Jews. As I have said elsewhere, if you want to baptize unbelieving children, you should be consistent and baptize unbelieving spouses. And if not, why not?
Bringing a Baby for Sprinkling
Is it? Yes, of course it is. That’s what it looks like in the Bible, most certainly. Circumcision was a national barrier, a fleshly succession. Baptism is
Raw Meat
Babies are raw, Adamic meat. Circumcision pictured Adamic (federal) death, and baptism pictures evian (corporate) resurrection. Christ fulfilled circumcision and dealt with original sin, so infants don’t need anything except the gospel. You can claim that baptism gives them the Spirit, but they are not repentant. It messes terribly with what baptism actually is. Whatever you claim, you are using it to mark out a boundary of untransformed flesh. That’s why a Christian baby is not a baby Christian. It’s only a Christian by flesh, by Adamic succession, not the succession of the Spirit, which transcends all familial, denominational, cultural and national boundaries.
Psalm 8
Infants “mediating the gospel.” Good point. But so do scrolls, and books, and MP3s. That’s not what this is about. It’s about a person as a mature, fulfilled Tabernacle or Temple, out of whose belly the living waters flow, producing spiritual offspring because they are spiritually fertile. It’s grown-up, priesthood stuff. This is grasping at straws.
Holy
Yes, there is a “holy” that is set apart for sacrifice. That is the Covenant delegated. And there is a holy that follows the transforming fire. This is Covenant holiness vindicated. Circumcision was for the former. Baptism is for the latter. And this plays out not only corporately, but individually. Baptists might be dangerously individualistic at times, but FV baptism is dangerously corporate. Which is why Doug Wilson had to suggest a “reaffirmation of vows” on his blog this week.
Leithart
Sorry. No – I do agree that it is more than an external sign. But it is only so because it is an obedient response by the person being baptized.
Acts 2
Yes, the order is different, but as I said, Spirit baptism was a sign. Jesus’ baptism was followed by the Spirit. But it’s the “John” baptism being fulfilled in Christ. In all cases, repentance was required. Do you think there’s a good reason why the Scriptures record no babies being brought to John, and no artist or commentator ever since has ever mentioned it? At least not in my experience. Everyone knows it was about repentance. Infant baptism was introduced later because we as fallen humans are so tied to fleshly boundaries. But that’s not where our security lies any more.
Talking to Babies
One again, flesh. Not spirit. Our children are to be under the sound of the gospel until they repent and come to New Covenant faith. Talking to babies is not just ridiculous (as evidence) but irrelevant.
Hebrews 10
See my post “Second Hand Curses.” That’s the context of Hebrews.
Tree of Life
That messes up the pattern that we see later on in better, faithful Adams. They receive the fruit of wisdom after the serpent is crushed. They obey, and then they understand.
Bible Matrix
I’d be interested to read it. But Bible Matrix doesn’t go much further than simply systematizing what JBJ teaches.
Thanks again for the responses.
June 17th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Thanks for the discussion, Mike. I can’t take it much farther right now. Too many other things on my plate.
As you pointed out, my responses do come from the assumption that paedobaptism is right. I like to start with the truth. =) No, seriously, that is my starting point, such that I would need significant arguments to shift me away from it.
Furthermore, I’d argue that the burden of proof is on those who maintain that children are no longer included in God’s covenant. If they were once included in God’s covenant and now aren’t, that needs to be demonstrated. It is thus the credobaptist who has the burden of proof in this matter.
But it seems to me that on several occasions you have responded with assertions, not with arguments (e.g., “Becoming a Christian requires internal compliance from the start. It is a thing of the Spirit”). That’s something that you need to argue for; it’s not a starting point that we necessarily have in common.
A couple responses to your responses to my responses:
> Let me put it this way: there’s
> no evidence that anyone who
> wasn’t repentant and had come
> to faith was baptized. None.
> Ever.
Well, there is 1 Corinthians 10, where we find that all the Israelites, including their infant children, were baptized.
But notice that there’s no evidence that anyone who was a child born to a believing parent had to wait until he was old enough and articulate enough to profess his faith before being baptized. None. Ever.
> New Covenant baptism is about serving
> in the Tabernacle as a priest.
It’s about a lot of things. This is one of them. But it’s not the only one.
> If I were to use your kind of
> argument here, I would say that
> people needed to be thirty
> before they could be baptized.
But that’s not my kind of argument. I don’t think that the only thing that corresponds to baptism is priestly washing. I have argued that cleansing after touching the dead (which cleansing would have applied to children) also corresponds to baptism. In fact, it seems to me that YOUR view would lead one to think that baptism ought to take place at age 30.
> Now, imagine the outer square
> boundary fulfilled and extended
> by Christ to all nations, not
> just Israel, all people, all
> infants. And imagine the circle
> (Laver) boundary within it
> extended to, not just men, but
> to women as well, because the
> Holy Place is now safe for Eve
> to minister also.
Now imagine the circle with the Laver extended to, not just men and women, but infants as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for babies to minister also.
> Yes, and if their children didn’t
> believe, they were cut off.
Yes, and if you don’t believe, you will be cut off also. Same for me. What’s true of children is true of grown-ups. If we don’t abide in Christ, we will be cut off and burned (John 15).
> Infant baptism was introduced later
> because we as fallen humans are so
> tied to fleshly boundaries.
Naw. Infant baptism was introduced at least by Acts 2, when Peter told the crowds that the promise was for their children.
> Talking to babies is not just
> ridiculous (as evidence) but
> irrelevant.
The point Leithart is making is that it is precisely by talking to our babies that we shape who they are. They become “them” in response to our talking to them(respondeo etsi mutabor, as Eugen would say). If that’s the case when parents talk to their children, and I think it is, then how much more when God speaks to our children?
> Tree of Life
>
> That messes up the pattern that we see
> later on in better, faithful Adams.
> They receive the fruit of wisdom after
> the serpent is crushed. They obey, and
> then they understand.
Well, I’m just following Jim’s “Merit or Maturity” here. =) See also my essay on Psalm 8 in the forthcoming Festschrift. First, Adam was under the angels for a little while. Then he would be crowned with glory and honor.
Perhaps in the pattern you’ve spotted, the subsequent wisdom is a move beyond priest and king to prophet.
Thanks again for the interaction.
June 19th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Mike, two things:
1) I am not sure why in light of all your reading of JBJ and Leithart and Wilson you would be persuaded to maintain such distinctions between fleshly and spiritual. A theology of Bridal maturation would not dichotomize, but rather strengthen the spiritual and fleshly nature of the covenant under a new creation.
2) Following point #1–to borrow one of John’s observations–covenant theology is also expansion theology. By making limitations you are decreasing the glory of the new. Hebrews makes the point that the NCreation is more glorious and greater than the OCreation by making it more inclusive.
P.S. i’d point you to Leithart’s Priesthood of the Plebs.
These two points settle the issue in my mind.
June 19th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Also, have you read this by Leithart: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-47-do-baptists-talk-to-their-babies/
June 19th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Hi Uri
Thanks for commenting!
- I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not a gnostic. What I’m advocating is a better understanding of “Spirit-filled flesh.”
- Limitations: it seems to me that some of the younger gents who subscribe to the FV are more willing to take it to its logical, and more obviously aberrant, conclusions, such as the suggestions by commenters here that Covenant renewal worship should be closed to the unbaptized, the unbelieving spouses of believers should be baptized, and babies should be adopted so they can be baptized. These ideas are not extreme or illogical. The tree is known by its fruit, and its fruitcakes (the conclusions, not the commenters.) It has limitations but it they are very strange ones.
-Paedobaptism concerns itself with the succession of flesh (there’s simply no way around it). It could be simply because I’m a baptist, but that border of flesh is unwelcoming. It doesn’t communicate “all nations.” Like circumcision, it communicates, at least in the modern world, “sect.” For those in the inside, it promotes a false sense of security and a false sense of obligation. For those on the outside it puts up an Old Covenant familial, even racial, wall. This is not intentional, but it’s not New Covnenant. Credobaptists can achieve the same effect through Pharisaic inhospitality, as the Closed Brethren do. They, too, are concerned so much with their physical seed that they have become a sect, a closed door (Funny thing is, they do business like postmillennisalists! – Amazingly innovative, honest, practical.) So, your theology might be expansionist and more inclusive, but in practice you’ve erected a wall where Jesus knocked one down. Paedobaptism is not a boundary of faith. It is a man-made border around family, church, or culture, in a Covenant that is supposed to transcend, and does transcend, all of these. The Christianity that is booming in the global south understands this. I don’t find a lot of weird Dutch names among them. (No disrespect, but this is a direct result of a spiritual succession limited to family and culture. I am very glad you are Brazilian! You seem to be an exception.)
- Dr Leithart’s article, with all due respect, really surprised me – this material is in his book “The Baptized Body.” He confuses an infant’s trust in its parents with a believer’s trust in God. One is a type of the other, but they are not the same. And it confuses the New Covenant sign with Covenant parenting. My kids are Covenant kids. They weren’t ostracized from church, and they understood what baptism and table meant long before they came to faith as New Covenant priests. They know what a Christian actually is. It is not something you inherit. The Gospel-Law brought them to Christ.
With all respect for you my brother
Cheers,
Mike
June 19th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Hi John
Yes – we all need bigger plates!
I’ll try to be brief. Not obligation to reply.
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN
My argument is that all people, from cradle to grave, are now included in the Covenant. All are to come under the sound of the gospel, and under its discipline – as disciples. The blood boundary is gone, torn down by Jesus. Paedobaptism practically puts the wall of circumcision back up again.
INTERNAL VS. EXTERNAL
Hebrews 9 makes it clear that the Law was about the externals, the stoicheia, the elementary school.
1 CORINTHIANS 10
The Red Sea was all about government. With whom was God angry? The children? No. With those who should have believed and conquered the Land. Circumcision and Passover concerned the unity of flesh in its cutting off. The Red Sea was resurrection, hence the song of Miriam. It concerned the victorious “warrior bride.”
Paul uses this historical type to argue not for familial, denominational or cultural unity (which is what paedobaptism actually is), but for spiritual unity as ministers of the gospel. He is not talking about the children at all, but about the elders. This is one of 3 or 4 verses that keep cropping up because there is nothing else. It’s a bit like arguing with an evolutionist who keeps using the debunked black/white moth argument, or the doctored embryo diagrams.
ARGUING FROM SILENCE
“…notice that there’s no evidence that anyone who was a child born to a believing parent had to wait until he was old enough and articulate enough to profess his faith before being baptized. None. Ever.”
No, but the fact that repentance and faith are prerequisites is made very clear. And real spiritual fruit was required to remain within that boundary. What else is necessary? There’s no proof that “household animals” weren’t baptized either.
Neither archaeology or the historical record of the early church are exactly supportive of paedobaptism either. If the apostles were allowing it, it is highly unlikely that this would be the case.
AGED 30
Actually, it is your kind of argument. It is taking something that is typological and physically importing it into the New Covenant without warrant. In your case, it is taking a genealogical sign and applying it to a Covenant where geneaologies no longer matter. They were all burnt up.
BOUNDARIES
“Now imagine the circle with the Laver extended to, not just men and women, but infants as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for babies to minister also.”
What, like Baby Herman? I would need a really good imagination for that. Or drugs. This is preposterous. When someone is forced to take an unnatural position, there is a bee in his pocket. No one would claim such a thing if they didn’t have a strange tradition to defend.
BEING CUT OFF
I believe God finishes the work he starts in us. Fruit is the evidence of faith, of the work of the Spirit. Those who are saved will continue, they will persevere. Baptism is not for those under conviction. It is for those who have repented and believed.
ACTS 2
This is another doctored embryo verse. Peter said the promise was for them, their children and those afar off. It is Tabernacle architecture. The condition was still repentance and faith in Christ. The children of believers would have heard the gospel, but to claim the babies were baptized is pushing it. Why does it not mention the children of those afar off? If Peter was truly teaching that baptism now replaced circumcision, the rest of the book of Acts would not play out the way it does at all. The disputes over circumcision would not look the way they do. In Acts 21, Paul was falsely accused of teaching that baptism replaced circumcision. This is where PBs fail to follow through with the logic. And the same handful of painfully taut verses get regurgitated over and over.
TALKING TO BABIES
Yes, we FORM our babies by talking to them. We bring them under the ministry of the gospel. But baptism isn’t for those who are under the sound of the gospel, but for those who have responded and can now minister it, those who are FILLED. God speaking is one thing. It cuts our hearts (circumcision). When we speak back, that’s what baptism is about. His Word has not returned void. Babies are only receptors of the gospel until they come to faith.
You have to crunch too many gears to apply this “response” to infants. As Tammy pointed out on Doug’s blog, a key New Covenant word is understanding.
In fact, you have to crunch the gears and put the Covenant history bus in reverse even to make a case for it. Why hold onto a doctrine that causes so much other doctrinal strife? [Sorry - disrespectful analogy - I have removed it!] If the controversy weren’t so tragic and damaging it would be hilarious.
TREE OF LIFE
Well, no matter what order Adam’s test would have taken, his vindication as Victor, standing on the springs, is at the end of his time under the childish Law, not at the beginning. And, as I said, nearly every (if not every) baptism story in Acts follows the same pattern, with baptism at the end. It’s too perfect to discount.
Kind regards,
Mike
June 20th, 2011 at 1:35 am
Have edited my last comment. Analogy was disrespectful and unhelpful. Sincere apologies.