Children of the Spirit
or Baptizing the World
After Pentecost, the firstfruits church met in the Temple. Over the next few decades, the Jewish leaders barred these worshippers from their premises. What they didn’t realise was that the glory was departing as it did in the time of Ezekiel, only this time it was inside people who were living Temples as Jesus was.
In some ways, things haven’t changed. In Britain, apostate cathedrals disallow growing evangelical congregations from using their almost empty buildings. But persecution simply brings matters to a head, and a very public one. It forces hidden issues into the light and shouts them from the rooftops.
From Voice of the Martyrs this week:
Police in China held “about two dozen” pastors and elders of Beijing’s Shouwang Church under house arrest or at police stations over the weekend to keep them from attending a Sunday worship service in a public location, according to Bob Fu of the China Aid Association. Three top leaders of the church remain in jail and several others are under strict surveillance after hundreds of Chinese police cordoned off the walkway to a third-floor outdoor meeting area adjacent to a property purchased by the church in Haidian district, Beijing, and arrested at least 160 members of the 1,000-strong church as they tried to assemble. Most have since been released.
Church leaders claimed officials had pressured their landlords, forcing them out of both rented and purchased locations and leaving them no choice but to worship in the open. ‘The government cornered them into making this decision,’ Fu said, adding that the church had initially tried to register with the government. ‘They waited for two years, and when the government still denied them registration, they tried to keep a low profile before finally deciding to buy the Daheng New Epoch Technology building.’ Shouwang is a very unique church, he said. ‘Most members are well-educated, and they include China’s top religious scholars and even former government officials, which may be a factor in the government’s response to them,’ he said.
Under the Old Covenant, Satan’s strategy was to kill the offspring of the Woman. With a single bloodline from Adam to Jesus, this was very possible. In fact, in one case (under the reign of Athaliah, the Covenant harlot of the day) the line was down to a thread, a single child, Joash.
The New Covenant is Satan’s worst nightmare. When he sends false doctrine, all it does is separate the elect from the damned. It purifies the church! And when he sends persecution, all it does it multiply the number of believers! Chopping God’s servants up with an ax–”sawing them asunder”–not only increases their number, but also their power. This is because the Messianic line is now Spirit, not blood. The children are not those of flesh born of the will (or the willy) of a man, but those born of God by the Spirit (John 1:13). Nothing he can do will stop the flow of living water.
Dispensationalists and paedobaptists both misunderstand this marked difference between the Covenants. We have moved from external laws to an Internal Law. Jews don’t qualify on the basis of their heritage. Christian infants don’t qualify on the basis of their heritage. They are children–children under the tutelage of the Law mediated by those filled with the Spirit. This is why the Law was mediated by angels, and why we don’t need them for this purpose any more. Until the Spirit of God cuts our hearts (circumcision) and moves in, all our heritages, whether circumcision of infant baptism are, well, just so much skubalon. [2] They are entirely powerless (Romans 8:3).
True children of the New Covenant are the miraculously multiplied water chariots of the New Temple. Not only do they have legs and stand and walk upright, the house is wherever they are. Covenant kids are not what they used to be, and this is good. The children of men are symbols of the children of God.
_________________________________
[1] See An Atheist ‘Gets’ Baptism and New Covenant Virility 1 and 2.
[2] The Greek word for shit. In Finland, 90% of people were baptized as infants, yet only 3% go to church. That’s a lot of apostates. Their baptism ain’t worth, well, you know, and this tragic failure has got absolutely nothing to do with a lack of church discipline when it comes to apostates. The incredible church growth in China isn’t a result of heritage, either bad or good. It is a result of the destruction of it. See Mao, Servant of God. As with Timothy, a godly heritage may be a foundation for conversion, but it is not conversion.
April 16th, 2011 at 5:19 am
Hm, covenant kids are still ‘in the Lord’ under the Ten Words, specifically the 5th commandment, and still recipients of the same promise “that it will go well with them” (covenant language, cf. Sutton’s “That you may prosper”.)
Old Covenant kids didn’t qualify on the basis of their heritage, they were blessed because of God’s promise to their parents and to them. Same with New Covenant kids – God still promises “that they will prosper” in the Covenant.
Neither Old Covenant kids nor New Covenant kids were to look to the heritage as if it made them fitting for the kingdom. They looked to the promises of the covenant showered upon them and laid hold of them in faith – or were laid low in the wilderness, just like us.
In other words, yes, circumcision or baptism, when viewed as “I’m Abraham’s seed, I don’t have to go to church” (the example of Finland) is a pile of ess aitch eye tee. But when taken up in faith, it is a glorious promise.
Blessings on you,
Doug Roorda
April 16th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Doug – I agree with most of that, but you have missed my point concerning external and internal Law. If the baptized are the church, then Finland’s church is not actually in church. And if the solution to that is to assess the faith of the parents or godparents, then that is not the New Covenant. “Salvation” is conferred upon you because of your heritage. Historically this is a disaster, even when the benefits of solid “Covenant” parenting are taken into account in modern churches to combat it.
Old Covenant kids were only under the Covenant because of their national heritage. It was a Covenant of human succession, with a few add-ons along the way prefiguring what would come in the New. New Covenant kids are those who do what Jesus says, not those born to those who do what Jesus says. Are you getting my drift? Covenant “children” are no longer actual children. All children are Old Covenant children, if you like. They may be “set apart” from the world while in our care, but the Covenant succession is one of Spirit, not blood. Conflating the two causes nothing but confusion.
A godly heritage can bring us to Christ, if taken up in faith as you say. But Paul says those of faith are Abraham’s seed, and baptism is for those of faith. Only those who have circumcized hearts and have received the Spirit of God are the seed.
My children are my children, yes. And if they obey God’s laws they will prosper. Yes. But if my unbelieving neighbour obeys God’s laws, he too, will prosper (a la Gary North’s common grace). That’s where pb’s go wrong. The New Covenant takes this a step further. It takes the dusty body gathered from the dust and fills it with the breath of God. The Covenant-sign boundary is one of life, not death. It is for those who can communicate the life of the Spirit like Jesus did. It is no longer for those who are under Covenant care. It is for those who can dish it out — a royal priesthood inside the tent.
I really don’t understand why it is so difficult to comprehend the difference between “born” and “born again.” One is forming and the other is filling. The two very different Covenant signs reflect this progress. Baptism is not about parenting, any more than cracking a bottle of champagne on the ship’s bow is about purchasing the steel. It is a commission for ministry, the passing out parade.
So, Sutton’s emphasis on the Covenant is extremely helpful, and all baptists should read it too. But the Old Covenant and the New are not the same.
Here’s another picture, from the Bible Matrix dominion pattern. Israel came out of Egypt as a people. That is heritage, and it pictures the Old Covenant. Jesus took that heritage into the grave and returned with a new “generation”, one that was not a people but a tested and trained army. All they knew was life under God. They were stones raised up in the wilderness. As John said, God doesn’t need your heritage. He can plug you into the tree any time, but it is not done when you are an infant. It is done when you repent and believe.
April 16th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
—–
Doug – I agree with most of that, but you have missed my point concerning external and internal Law. If the baptized are the church, then Finland’s church is not actually in church. And if the solution to that is to assess the faith of the parents or godparents, then that is not the New Covenant. “Salvation” is conferred upon you because of your heritage. Historically this is a disaster, even when the benefits of solid “Covenant” parenting are taken into account in modern churches to combat it.
————–
Hm, lots there Mike. I think the historical disaster results from making the mistake that I believe you’re making [unless I am mistaken about your mistake]: that it is heritage, not promise. In those communions where the the covenant is understood not as bloodline, but God’s promise (to be God to the children) you do see long generations of godliness. But when the parents grow up and say “it’s because we’re German/Swedish/Dutch/Scottish” they justly come under condemnation, because they are acting just like the Israelites who were laid low in the desert in spite of their communion with Christ the Rock. If parents are telling their kids “you’re Dutch, so you’re ok” they are blaspheming God’s grace. But if they are telling their kids “God has promised to be your God, and you are his, now grow in the grace given you” they are praising God’s grace by repeating his promises.
———————-
Old Covenant kids were only under the Covenant because of their national heritage. It was a Covenant of human succession, with a few add-ons along the way prefiguring what would come in the New. New Covenant kids are those who do what Jesus says, not those born to those who do what Jesus says. Are you getting my drift? Covenant “children” are no longer actual children. All children are Old Covenant children, if you like. They may be “set apart” from the world while in our care, but the Covenant succession is one of Spirit, not blood. Conflating the two causes nothing but confusion.
——————————
Perhaps I am not adequately expressing how much we adults are in the same position as the children: “Today, if you hear His voice” is what we must hear every day, infant or grey hair. I don’t agree that it was ever about heritage, it’s always been about God’s promise – which he has graciously given to believers and their seed.
But no, I can’t agree that children are no longer children. There are too many New Covenant, New Testament children noted who believe in Jesus. But you’re right covenant succession is about Spirit, not blood — nor was it ever about blood. It was always about the promise of (both objective and subjective genitive) the Spirit.
—————————
A godly heritage can bring us to Christ, if taken up in faith as you say. But Paul says those of faith are Abraham’s seed, and baptism is for those of faith. Only those who have circumcized hearts and have received the Spirit of God are the seed.
———————
well, we’ve plowed that field a couple times. Yep. Those believing children.
———————
My children are my children, yes. And if they obey God’s laws they will prosper. Yes. But if my unbelieving neighbour obeys God’s laws, he too, will prosper (a la Gary North’s common grace). That’s where pb’s go wrong. The New Covenant takes this a step further. It takes the dusty body gathered from the dust and fills it with the breath of God. The Covenant-sign boundary is one of life, not death. It is for those who can communicate the life of the Spirit like Jesus did. It is no longer for those who are under Covenant care. It is for those who can dish it out — a royal priesthood inside the tent.
—————————–
Mike, I think you’ve got some insights into the nature of the sign but I’m happy enough to understand the babes and infants out of whose mouths praise was ordained to be part of the royal priesthood inside the tent. They are perhaps not as mature as you or I, but then I’m not as mature as a lot of people, likely including you, my dear brother.
————————-
I really don’t understand why it is so difficult to comprehend the difference between “born” and “born again.” One is forming and the other is filling. The two very different Covenant signs reflect this progress. Baptism is not about parenting, any more than cracking a bottle of champagne on the ship’s bow is about purchasing the steel. It is a commission for ministry, the passing out parade.
————————
Hm, I guess the infinks are just little ships, blasting Satan and engaging in holy war. But again, I’m happy enough to entertain your insights into the new and improved covenant sign – but not to (in my view) diminish the promise of grace to the infinks when we progress from OC to NC.
—————————
So, Sutton’s emphasis on the Covenant is extremely helpful, and all baptists should read it too. But the Old Covenant and the New are not the same.
———————–
Hey, I’m with you there. Although they are the same, too.
—————————–
Here’s another picture, from the Bible Matrix dominion pattern. Israel came out of Egypt as a people. That is heritage, and it pictures the Old Covenant. Jesus took that heritage into the grave and returned with a new “generation”, one that was not a people but a tested and trained army. All they knew was life under God. They were stones raised up in the wilderness. As John said, God doesn’t need your heritage. He can plug you into the tree any time, but it is not done when you are an infant. It is done when you repent and believe.
——————————–
. . . but they ate and drank the same Christ we eat and drink. And those who didn’t respond in faith were laid low, just as we are warned can happen to us.
Good points on the heritage/army thing – though the multitude that went out was in battle array already. You’re seeing great stuff, more and more, better and better – but the new and better – as I see it – includes and improves on the gracious promises already given to the wee ones.
It seems that we are disagreeing, fundamentally, on whether God was savingly gracious to children of OT believers. I’m saying yes, and He still is to children of NT believers, because the promises are still yea and amen in Christ. If I’m reading you right, you don’t agree that He was savingly gracious to OT covenant kids.
On the agreement side, there’s clearly loads to be explicated in understanding the covenant signs, both Old and New. You’re moving us along the continuum, and I greatly appreciate that, even if you are “all wet” (or maybe “all dry”) on baptism . . .
All for now, brain’s empty.
Blessings and best wishes in Christ,
Doug
April 16th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Doug
Thanks for your comments.
I think it boils down at one level to promises given and promises received. The baptism of Jesus is not for those who have simply received the promise. It is for those who have already RECEIVED what was promised — the Spirit. A word search for promise in the NT makes this abundantly clear.
However, baptism is still a promise, but it is not a promise of the Spirit as circumcision was. It is a promise of resurrection for those who have already received the Spirit. The church has already inherited what was promised to Israel, and is now promised an even better heritage – the resurrection of the body.
Blessings,
Mike
April 16th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Point taken on the battle array – the chiasm was supposed to be
Abraham in Canaan > Joseph in Egypt > Israel in Canaan
But they blew it. They weren’t an army after all. They were grasshoppers. So God repeated the pattern in their journey from Egypt to Canaan. Israel was born again.
April 16th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Hebrews 8:6 “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.”
April 17th, 2011 at 8:01 am
Mike, thanks.
You may have answered this and I am too dense to see it – I had written
————
It seems that we are disagreeing, fundamentally, on whether God was savingly gracious to children of OT believers. I’m saying yes, and He still is to children of NT believers, because the promises are still yea and amen in Christ. If I’m reading you right, you don’t agree that He was savingly gracious to OT covenant kids.
——————-
This still seems to me to be the fundamental difference we have – was God savingly gracious to children of OT believers?
—–
I /did/ read what you wrote above, but I don’t see how a covenant with better promises ends up with less for the kids. (The infants and children of Israel ate and drank of Christ in the wilderness, but now with better promises they no longer eat and drink of Christ? I don’t get it).
Thanks again for the interaction. Have a blessed Lord’s day!
Doug
April 17th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Thanks Doug
I think too much is made of circumcision. It was possible for uncircumcised Gentiles to believe and be saved under the Old Covenant. Circumcision concerned the priesthood, not the saved. The promises concerned a Land for this priesthood, the presence of God and His provision while they waited for the offspring who would be cut off for the world.
But now the priesthood is actually all the saved. The mountain of death is now the mountain of life. It doesn’t end up with less for infants, not if infants have Spirit-filled parents. Just as circumcision was for the priesthood that held back death, baptism is for the Spirit-filled who minister life.
As I’ve mentioned before, tying the Covenant sign directly to parenting (bypassing priesthood) is what causes the problem. The priesthood is now the order of Melchizedek — all nations. So the border is no longer a national one, a border of blood and offspring. It is a border of the outflow of the Spirit, and it includes the outflow FROM those baptized.
It is quite possible to have Covenant children who aren’t baptized. But as I said, that is Old Covenant. Each life pictures the entire Covenant history. When a person comes of age, the character of life becomes “bridal.” Infant baptism not only messes with the picture, it causes untold confusion about the definition of a Christian.
April 17th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Mike, this is good. First, your paragraph 1 – yes, circumcision has been equated with salvation which meant that ‘obviously’ there couldn’t be any saved people who were uncircumcised. But my wife and I were just working on music for our upcoming conference (with Jeff Meyers)and I was transcribing Psalm 115 for chanting and it clearly speaks of the house of Israel, the house of Aaron, and those who fear the Lord (yo-re Yahweh, in bad phonetic Hebrew).
And so if we’ve misunderstood circumcision in that way, I can allow we need to adjust our understand of baptism in some ways as well – which has been done already in some ways, but maybe there’s more. So give me a poke sometime and I’ll try to work through the rest of your response. Thanks again!
Doug
April 18th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Doug
I wish we had chanted Psalms. Working on it…
Circumcision was about a divided Adam. Even within this divided Adam there were internal walls (as with any body), hence the Levitical house. But I think the tri-level mention here is possibly Word (head – Israel), Sacrament (body – Aaron) and Government (God-fearing Gentiles). The divided parts make a complete (though prostrate) body ready to be held together by the Spirit, a body ready to speak, see, hear, smell, handle, walk and whisper. Baptism is for that completed body, for those who can stand upright, fashioned by God, as Adam did after the Lord breathed into him. We are to bow to each other as “gods,” and not to idols. Only One baby was ever bowed to, the One that would fulfill the Circumcision. He didn’t need circumcision, and He didn’t need John’s baptism. Both ministered a dose of death, sacrificial division before the holy fire of the Spirit.
Just some wild thoughts. Thanks for the interaction. I really appreciate your ability to discuss without getting pointy. You shame me!