A Debate on Baptism: Part 3

This is Evan Wheeler’s reply to Mr. Ohlman’s second question.

“As background for my second question to Evan I would like to lay out what I believe to be the Paedo-baptist position, and then ask about one of the points. As I understand it the logic goes as follows:^[1]

A) The children of believers are in the covenant.

B) All members of the covenant must receive the covenant sign.

C) Therefore the children of believers must receive the covenant sign^[2].

Evan should know that I believe in (A)^[3]. He need spill no more bits or bytes on the issue. I also believe that (C) follows logically and  inexorably from (A) and (B).

But He should know that I don’t believe in (B). Indeed I believe it is contradicted by all of the Biblical evidence, both positive and negative^[4]. So my question for Evan this time round (And, as JPJ almost said, “I have not yet begun to debate”) is:

“What Biblical evidence do you bring forward to convince me that ‘All members of the covenant must receive the covenant sign?’”

This question can be answered in a way very similar to Mr. Ohlman’s first question. I will clarify for the sake of the reader, that Mr. Vaughn is not asking “Why should infants be baptized” but he is asking what Biblical evidence I have to say that all members of the family – including women, slaves, etc – should receive the sign of the covenant.

Ultimately, this question is about the baptism of females. Mr. Vaughn’s argument is as follows:

–          Only males were circumcised in the old covenant, including infants.

–          Circumcision was the outward sign of the covenant that associated the infant with God’s people.

–          Mr. Wheeler believes that baptism is the outward sign of the new covenant.

–          It does not necessitate that all infants be baptized, just male infants, if indeed infant baptism argues based on covenant continuity.

That is the context of his question.

I do not necessarily see this as a paedobaptist issue. I also do not argue that baptism is so closely linked to circumcision.

–          I think that all members of the household are to receive baptism because that is the example given in the New Testament. [1]

–          However, I also see the new covenant being more inclusive. We see this explained a variety of times with Paul’s writings about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the new covenant. [2]

The issue is not, “Do you have a crystal clear statement using the words ‘infant’ or ‘all individuals’ that describes the administration of baptism?”, rather the issue is whether or not we understand continuity.

I believe that all individuals in the household are to receive baptism, even women and infants, because the new covenant is a better covenant. Circumcision was only to males. However water baptism is not dependent on a body part, it is universal. If I believe that the sign of the new covenant is baptism, then it logically follows that men and women are to receive it because infants have always received the sign, and women are baptized in the book of Acts.

As I stated in my Introduction, the accounts of baptisms in the book of Acts do not teach a believers only baptism. The baptism are simply examples of people professing faith and being baptized (including households), and therefore are not to be thought of as a “Sola creedo” text. Creedobaptism is not the position that confessors may be baptized; it is the position that a confession of faith is mandated for baptism.

So I believe that all members of the household are to receive baptism because,

–          Baptism is not limited to body parts like circumcision was.

–          Women were baptized in the book of Acts, therefore show that the sign of the covenant is no longer limited to males only.

–          Since circumcision was given to all males in the household, baptism is therefore given to all members of the covenant, based on the fact that women are to receive it, and that infants have always received the sign.

The question really depends on whether or not you see baptism as the outward sign of the new covenant. The reason baptism is the new covenant sign is not because of a “crystal clear” text that states “baptism is the new covenant sign”. If we argued this way in order to discover God’s truth in His word, then the Trinity, theonomy, sola fide, sola Scriptura, and other very important Christian doctrines would be brought into question. Circumcision was a sign of circumcision of the heart.[3] Baptism is a sign of the new covenant, where our hearts are cleansed. [4]

So all members of the household of a believer is to receive baptism because it’s the new covenant sign that applies to everyone, no longer just males, and that is proven by the baptism of women and the nature of the covenant in its inclusivity of Gentiles.

 

 

Vaughn Ohlman’s Footnotes

^[1] If I have misstated the paedo-baptist position then my question would change to, “What should be the point (B) here? Or did I get even (A) wrong?”

^[2] The corresponding chain of logic for the covenantal credo-baptist would be:

L) The children and wife (and slaves) of believers are in the covenant, at least in part.

M) Baptism is an ordinance of public profession of faith, given to those who come for it and profess (or otherwise demonstrate) their faith.

N) Baptism should be given to the children or wife (and slaves) of a believer if and when they come forward for it and profess their faith.

Evan is welcome to ask me about any of these points at any time 🙂

^[3] At least in part. Scripturally both Isaac and Ishmael received the Covenant sign, and received blessings as the sons of Abraham. Presumably even the sons of his concubines were circumcised.

But the NT is quite clear that Isaac was ‘the son of promise’ in quite a different way from the other sons of Abraham.
So while I Cor 7 speaks of the wife and children of a believing man (and the husband and children of an unbelieving woman) as being sanctified and holy this does not necessarily translate into an ‘Isaac’ relationship with God.

^[4] The positive evidence would be the fact that from the time of Abel to late in the life of Abraham, there was no covenant sign; and from Abraham until John the Baptist the covenant sign was designed to include only men: believing men, their male children, their bought slaves, and their male children.

Another positive evidence would be that while communion is also a covenant rite, most paedo-baptists do not believe that non-confessors should be given communion.

The negative evidence would be the that both the didactic and narrative passages in the NT concerning baptism teach that it is a sign to be given only on confession of faith.

Evan Wheeler’s Footnotes

[1] Lydia, Cornelius, and the Philippian jailer.

[2] Matthew 12:21, Acts 10:45, 11:1, 18, Galatians 3:8

[3] Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:29

[4] Ezekiel 36:25-26