[responding to Art. 1 of the Schleitheim Confession]…But I reply, first of all, that infant baptism is not a recent introduction, nor are its origins traceable to the papal church. For I say that it has always been a holy ordinance observed in the Christian church. There is no doctor, however ancient, who does not attest that it has always been observed since the time of the apostles.
I wanted to touch on this point in passing for the sole reason of informing the simple that it is an impudent slander for these fanatics [the Anabaptists] to make others believe that this ancient practice is a recently forged superstition and to feign that it derives from the pope. For the whole ancient church held to infant baptism long before one ever knew about the papacy or had ever heard of the pope.
Besides, I do not ask antiquity to legitimate anything for us unless it is founded on the Word of God. I know that it is not human custom that gives authority to the sacrament, nor does its efficacy depend on how men regulate it. Let us come, therefore, to the true rule of God, of which we have spoken, that is to say, his Word, which alone ought to hold here.
Their view is that one ought to administer baptism only to those who request it, to those who have made a profession of faith and repented. And thus infant baptism is the invention of man, opposed to the word of God.
In order to prove this they cite the passage from Saint Matthew’s last chapter, where Jesus Christ says to his apostles,”Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” To which they add this sentence from the 16th chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” That to them seems an invincible foundation.
… We see that our Lord acted the same way toward Abraham with regard to circumcision. For before he conferred this sign on him he received him into his covenant and instructed him in his Word.
But we must now note that when a man is received of God into the fellowship of the faithful, the promise of salvation which is given to him is not for him alone but also for his children. For it is said to him: “I am thy God, and the God of thy children after thee.” Therefore the man who has not been received into the covenant of God from his childhood is as a stranger to the church until such time as he is led into faith and repentance by the doctrine of salvation. But at the same time his posterity is also made a part of the family of the church. And for this reason infants of believers are baptized by virtue of this covenant, made with their fathers in their name and to their benefit. Herein, thus, lies the mistake of the poor Anabaptists. For since this doctrine must precede the sacrament, we do not resist it.
John Calvin, Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists in John Calvin: Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, trans., Benjamin Wirt Farley (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 44–47.
It seems to me that what this debate highlights is that so called Reformed Baptists have very little in common with the historic, confessionally Reformed. They have a different understanding of redemptive history, the sacraments, the covenants, hermeneutics, and even of who are people of God. Their use of the term, “Reformed” is very confusing and even misleading because their theology, piety, and practice is so different.
Hey Dr. Clark,
“But we must now note that when a man is received of God into the fellowship of the faithful, the promise of salvation which is given to him is not for him alone but also for his children. For it is said to him: “I am thy God, and the God of thy children after thee.”
Does “I am thy God, and the God of thy children after thee” = “the promise of salvation for children”? Did it mean that for Esau, for example (Romans 9:13)?
I’m curious because Meredith Kline said the argument for baptizing infants based on the “promise” was faulty. Is there a place in the NT where the promise given to Abraham is repeated to Christian believers in the NT (excluding Acts 2:39 since Peter was speaking to a Jewish audience of (only then) potential believers)?
Curious to know your thoughts.
Notice that it is the promise, and not the thing (salvation), that is conferred onto the offspring of believers. Circumcision and baptism are signs pointing salvation, IF the offspring have the same faith as their parents, pictured by the signs of circumcision and baptism. It is only by their own faith, in what the sign points to, that children of believers come into a saving relationship. Although Esau and Ishmael received the sign, they did not trust in what it signified, and were therefore not in a saving relationship to God in the covenant community.
From your comments I presume that you do not agree with the statement that the sacraments are seals? You say, “Notice that it is the promise, and not the thing (salvation), that is conferred onto the offspring of believers. Circumcision and baptism are signs pointing salvation, IF the offspring have the same faith as their parents, pictured by the signs of circumcision and baptism.” Where, then, would you affirm that sacraments are seals for covenant children if they are only “signs” pointing to salvation? What are the sacraments sealing if there is no faith?
You write, “It is only by their own faith, in what the sign points to, that children of believers come into a saving relationship. Although Esau and Ishmael received the sign, they did not trust in what it signified, and were therefore not in a saving relationship to God in the covenant community.” The problem with what you have written is that it does not take into account God’s electing choice (Romans 9). Esau and Ishmael were not chosen (i.e. elect) in the foreordained counsels of God in eternity. Thus, you say there is a promise given to believers and their children that God will be their God. Then you turn around and say, but the children have to believe. Your own Reformed theology mediates against this, however.
After all, as Richard Sibbes said (paraphrase), “In the covenant of Grace God gives what he commands and commands what he gives.” So (from what I understand you to be saying) Esau has to do something he is not capable of doing in himself for the promise of God to be realized in his life. But God makes a sure promise to both Esau and Ishmael that he WILL be their God if they would only believe (which only God can grant anyway, Eph. 2:8). That would be God not giving what he commands, which would undermine Sibbes’ statement about the covenant of grace.
In any case, your understanding of the promise (“I will be a God to you and to your seed after you”) does not make sense of the promises of the New Covenant which are reinterpreted in light of spiritual progeny rather than the Jewish progeny of Abraham (Isaiah 53:10; Hebrews 2:10).
It’s a qualified promise. It’s conditioned on faith. That’s the way it’s always been. That’s the nature of the promise to Jacob as well as to Esau. The secret things belong to God. The revealed things belong to us and to our children forever.
Your {bracketing} of a text with (at the very least) the potential of directly answering the premise is pure special pleading. Perhaps such an appeal is faulty, but attempting to preemptively undercut such an appeal by a “poisoning of the well” is also fallacious.
Presbyterians don’t confess MGK, not when he’s right on something or other; and definitely not when he’s wrong. Sounds to me like he was repping the Baptist take. Not the Heidelberg take, Q&A 66-74. Or WCF 27:3 or 28:6. He’s entitled to support whatever particular interpretation of a text he thinks is most true and accurate. No one is obligated to admire his conviction.
Bruce,
The reason I “poisoned the well” (as you say) is because Acts 2:39 is not a clear prooftext for infant baptism. A prooftext out of context is a pretext for a prooftext. I would argue that you are letting your paedobaptist glasses color your reading and not properly allowing the context of Acts to speak. Here are four reasons why:
1) The “promise” in Acts 2:39 is clearly the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 24:49 Jesus said to his disciples, “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” The cautious reader will notice that in Luke 24 the apostles have not yet received the promise of the Father (cf. John 7:39). If Peter was simply “republishing” the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 one would have to argue that Luke 24:49 has no connection with Acts 2:38-39. The fact is, Peter is not restating something. He’s saying something is being fulfilled. This fits the context of Acts 2 as Peter quotes Joel 2 which prophecies the final days of human history signaled by the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:17). Plus, “Holy Spirit” is the closest antecedent to the ἐπαγγελία.
2) Three distinct categories of people must be clearly maintained. Peter declares that the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for 1) you 2) your children and 3) all those who are far off. Taking the promise as the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49) in Acts 2:39, there are clearly certain conditions that must be met for the gift to be received (thus, “you will receive” (v. 38) is in the future tense). Peter is saying “you, your children, and all those far off will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit [e.i. the promise] if etc…” Clearly, the Gentiles are not on Peter’s radar here, as Acts 10-11 clearly show. Baptism is not viewed as some sort of “replacement” of circumcision (cf. Acts 15).
3) Paedobaptists say that God “covenants with believers and their children.” But in Acts 2:38-39, Peter is not preaching to believers. He’s preaching to devout Jews who are inquiring about salvation. He’s preaching to Jews who crucified the Messiah (Acts 2:36). He’s preaching to the “sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with [their] fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED’” (Acts 3:25). As “sons of the covenant” that God made with Abraham (notice that they are sons simply by their Jewish ethnicity) the gospel was to be proclaimed to them first. Among their many privileges (Romans 3:1-2; 9:4-5) the biological progeny received the first proclamation of the gospel. This is emphasized in Acts 3:26 where Peter says, “For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.” If Peter is trying to turn the Jews from their wicked ways, clearly he is not speaking to “believers and their children.” Especially before he knows whether they will repent and be baptized.
4) While the crowd’s response to Peter’s sermon is contextually important, it is often ignored in discussion. But it is “those who had received [Peter’s] word” that “were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). Based upon explicit reference in the text that believers were baptized, we have no warrant to conclude that children were also baptized that day. If the household baptisms had children (as some paedos argue), then most certainly there were children there that day. Whether there were children there or not doesn’t matter, however. The point is, baptism was not viewed as a replacement for circumcision here. We know that because before Acts 10, Peter would’ve never baptized someone who was uncircumcised.
Mark,
I agree with Bruce. I did not subscribe Meredith’s works when I was ordained. I wrote my name under the Reformed confessions. We confess explicitly that the Abrahamic promise for today.
There are two ways of being in the one covenant of grace now as there have always been. I’ve written about that at length in print and here, as you surely know.
Why on earth should I disregard Acts 2:39 because it was spoken to Jewish men? That’s a bizarre hermeneutic. The entire book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians but I don’t set it aside. The whole OT was written to Jews. Matthew was most likely written to Jews. What sort of Bible-chopping approach to Scripture is this?
“Potential believers?” They were members of the OT church. It seems like yet another desperate dodge of the clear force of Peter’s use of the Abrahamic promise in the NT. It seems as if you’re asking me to accept Baptist assumptions, which I’m not much inclined to do.
Since you have brought Meredith Kline into this discussion, I think it is fair to say that Meredith Kline was a paedobaptist. His reference to the “promise”, I think, was to the the line of promise, who would be in the line of inheritance for the ancestry for the promised Savior. Kline believed that Christ as Lord called on parents bring up their children in the faith as an obligation they committed to when they baptized their children under the promise that God would be the God of believers and their children. Kline is taken out of context in the video clip. I believe he is saying that the promise of election is a faulty argument for infant baptism, since baptism is not based on any promise that the child is elect to salvation because of baptism. That is his agreement with Baptists, not that infant baptism is wrong, only that there is better argument to support it.
.,
Angela,
Of course Meredith Kline was a paedobaptist. That’s not the argument. The point is that Kline is arguing against presumptive regeneration. Whether you hold to this view or not, you must admit that it was held by a large number of Reformed luminaries (including Calvin, Murray, William G. T. Shedd, Kuyper etc.).
Kline is saying that the traditional Presbyterian argument is based on the “promise.” The promise of what? “I will be a God to you and to your seed after you [i.e. the ones I’ve chosen, the elect].” However, God was not a God for Esau, but for Jacob (Romans 9). Do you agree that children should be considered “Holy in Christ”? If not, you are disagreeing with a large portion of your Reformed heritage. One major impetus for me changing positions on this issue was the URC forms for infant baptism. You may claim Calvin, but Calvin didn’t defend infant baptism in the way most paedos would today.
Finally, have you read Kline’s work by Oath Consigned”? he clearly viewed baptism as a sign of either blessing or curse, depending on outcome. Oftentimes I hear paedobaptists talk about the grace of baptism for infants. How is that possible without the presumption of regeneration? How is baptism gracious if you have no idea how things will turn out in the future? In other words, I don’t think you would wholesale embrace Kline’s view that baptism may be a gracious sign or a judgment sign in the future, depending on how the child responds (which plagues you with the difficulties of a previous comment I responded to).
This is hinted at in the previous responses from Bruce and Dr. Clark (whom I greatly respect). They don’t want to embrace Kline on this issue, because they know his argument against infant baptism is different from their own.
Mark, I am not going to argue about your interpretation of Kline. I agree with Bruce and Dr. Clark. I subscribe to the Reformed confessions, that the Abrahamic promise, is the new, covenant of grace represented by circumcision in the old covenant and by baptism in the new covenant, and that it is always the promise to believers and their children, of God’s promise of salvation when they believe as their father Abraham, and it is counted to them as righteousness.
Mark, what you don’t seem to understand is that there are two ways of being in the covenant of grace. Those who have the covenant sign of infant baptism do not necessarily have the salvation that it points to. They are outwardly in the covenant as members who have received the sign of promise, but not as members who have an inner, saving relationship through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Only then is the covenant sign a seal for them, sealed by the Holy Spirit in true faith in the Savior. Infant baptism is the sign, but it remains for God’s electing grace to seal it in faith, through the action of the Holy Spirit. Reformed parents have hope, even presume their baptized child may be elect, and bring him up, teaching him about the faith, and treating him as if he is elect unless the child renounces the faith. They understand that only God can know if the child is truly elect. We can only charitably presume anyone to be regenerate because only God knows for sure. Unless they renounce the faith, we accept them as fellow believers in the covenant community. Even Baptists can only presume that a person is regenerate.
Mark,
This response cannot come immediately or even very close after your response to me. Nothing I can do about that, any more than I can be responsible for the odd insertion of your response above later responses.
In someplace other than a combox, it might be prudential to address each of your four reasons at length. For the sake of brevity, I’m just going to answer by highlighting the purpose for Peter’s speech. It is an explanation, an accusation, and an call to repentance for mercy’s sake.
The explanation concerns 1) the glossalia and the audible and visual signs of the Spirit’s outpouring: which are not evidence of drunkenness, but of Scripture fulfillment; which 2) is further explained by the vindication of Jesus of Nazareth by God.
The accusation is that “you”–which is to say the children of Israel, the OT church-state, the public (rump) heirs of Abraham–“have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death him whom God raised up.” The result is the disinheritance of the whole unfaithful mass. Only those true to God remain of “Israel.” That would be… just One Person, Jesus of Nazareth. His own did not receive him, his disciples all deserted him. He stood alone.
The call is an offer of mercy. There is only one way for any of these would-be “sons of Abraham” to be restored now, to have any of those promises made to him and his seed, much less the capstone of the gift of the Holy Spirit. That would be to take advantage of this Lord-and-Christ’s ascension and session upon the throne of his father, and by union with him (who is the Sole Heir) through his grant of forgiveness be received again as a (formerly) prodigal son returned home. For in him all the promises are “Yes and Amen,” and apart from him there is not one promise but the threat of eternal separation.
So, your limitation of the “promise” to the simple antecedent fails to account for the whole speech, with many promises mentioned; and to the nature of the speech which is an announcement of the Judge’s verdict, and this particular audience’ sense of dread at the meaning of what they (some of them directly, all of them through their leaders) had done.
This audience reckoned them until this moment the sons of Abraham, heirs of the promise that began with him, to which was added many corollaries. The promises *had been* for them and for their children up to now; they knew this, they counted on this. And now they were cut off to the last man. All except for the One, faithful Israelite. God would never take away his promise from his remnant, even if that remnant was just One Man.
This sort of thing happened before. It wasn’t unprecedented. God told Moses he would wipe the nation out (except for him) and start over, as it were, with a remnant of one. In fact, because of his mediation, it did not happen; or rather because the people were “baptized into Moses” it did not happen, and his mediation was received.
God cut off many false members of the nation for unfaithfulness over the generations. He left a whole generation dead in the wilderness as an object lesson, teaching: you can be cut off and not obtain the heavenly land. A remnant of their children did go in. He cut off the northern tribes, keeping only Judah. He cuts Judah off as well; and then, as it were, called a remnant back from the dead.
But over and over, the only way to be restored to the promise–to ALL the promises–is to come back not according to one’s prior claims. Those are all dead. The only way back is by grace, by being united afresh to the mediator (eventually the Mediator) of the covenant.
When Peter proclaims readmission to the promise, even using the terminology of the Abrahamic covenant, you can bet that resonated with this audience. They would for sure be hearing this offer of pardon in terms with which they were familiar; their precious children also being generously embraced just as beforetime they were–which is to say (just as in times past, even as far back as Abraham himself) “as many of them as the Lord our God shall call,” meaning as many as are called effectually, never to lose mercy and his Spirit away (as it was taken from Saul, 2Sam.7:15; cf. 1Sam.16:14).
Bruce,
1. The promise is clearly singular. It’s not in the plural, and can’t be translated that way. Cf. Galatians 3:14, where Paul says, “so that we would receive the *promise* of the Spirit [which Paul says is the blessing of Abraham] through faith.” It’s not that there aren’t other promises in the passage. But what is the (singular) promise referring to. Your exegesis does not take into account Luke 24:49 or Acts 1:4-5, “Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had *promised*, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” The Holy Spirit is the clearly what is promised in Acts 1 and Luke 24. He is also the promise in Acts 2:39.
2. You write, “There is only one way for any of these would-be “sons of Abraham” to be restored now, to have any of those promises made to him and his seed, much less the capstone of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The problem with what you’ve said is that Peter goes onto preach to the Jewish nation in Acts 3 as “sons of the fathers.” He’s preaching to the “sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with [their] fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED’” (Acts 3:25).” The gospel had to be preached to them *first* historically. Clearly you have affirmed throughout your answer that these were not believers. And yet, they were sons of Abraham who legitimately circumcised their males without faith in Christ.
3. You write, “When Peter proclaims readmission to the promise, even using the terminology of the Abrahamic covenant, you can bet that resonated with this audience.” The problem with what you’ve said here is that in Peter’s mind baptism had not yet replaced circumcision (and I would argue that it never replaced circumcision). If you read Acts 10-11, it is clear that Peter would not fellowship with a Gentile who was uncircumcised. Neither would he have baptized someone who was uncircumcised. Until God gave them the Spirit, that is. Even in Acts 15, baptism is not seen as replacing circumcision. Circumcision is always retained as a national Jewish marker of identity. The argument paedobaptists make that if Peter would have said, “and your children weren’t included” is really a non-sequitur. What they wouldn’t have understood was Peter saying, “baptism replaces circumcision”.
Mark,
How is your hermeneutic not quasi-Dispensational?
How on earth do you know when Peter connected circumcision to baptism? Were you at Pentecost? I think not but you write as you were there.
Mark,
I’m not going to insult you by matching your rhetoric, saying “mine” is the clear and obvious reading, so yours can’t be such to you.
1. “The promise is clearly singular. It’s not in the plural, and can’t be translated that way.” I didn’t allege that it did. Note Act.13:23 , “according to the promise,* God raised up for Israel a Savior–Jesus.” Singular; so now is that just one single element of OT hope? Paul uses the same term in v32, same speech. There’s the promise to sit on his father’s throne, the promise to raise him from the dead, promise to make him his Son.
See, in biblical usage, a singular can be used as a collective noun. So, at minimum the promises of 2:27, which Peter also makes use of in his sermon, and the promise of vv34-35, promises that are made to the Christ but which effects are passed along to his people by faith. How can the people even receive the H.S. without first obtaining forgiveness of sins (another promise) and life through union with Christ (still another promise)? It’s all one massive promise, all rolled up in Christ, all promised way back to start with in Gen.3:15, and Gen.12, 15, 17, & 22. That’s where it all starts. The pouring out of the H.S. is proof that all has come about as promised. No, Peter isn’t just offering them the “icing” on the ancient promises, but the whole cake. You can keep your “sliver” interpretation as it suits you.
2. “The problem with what you’ve said is that Peter goes onto preach to the Jewish nation in Acts 3 as ‘sons of the fathers.'” Well, sure, “who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” We are obliged to interpret terms according to the context. Identifying them as the generation of their earthly fathers is simple honesty. So were the Israelites who died in the wilderness, however that did not make them “Israel of Israel,” Rom.9:6, i.e. true Israel.
The seed of Abraham is ultimately Christ, and that’s where the promise to the Seed of Abraham terminates. The whole reason for a physical nation was to have a context for the world to look to see where Messiah ought to come forth. Now, in the Seed all the nations (including people of Jewish extraction or affinity) of the earth will find blessing, provided they unite to him by faith, and partake in what is his as the sole Son and Heir, Heb.1:2 and cf. Isaac who alone inherits of Abraham’s possession. It’s the end of the line for everyone who rejects the covenant, who rejected Christ, who continues to spurn his offer of mercy.
3. “The problem with what you’ve said here is that in Peter’s mind baptism had not yet replaced circumcision (and I would argue that it never replaced circumcision).” Whatever. They are correlated in Col.2:11-12. Peter went to meet with Cornelius before the Spirit fell on them, having been corrected by the vision. Baptism is added to Jews already circumcised; then over time it becomes clear that circumcision is 1) superfluous, other than as a Jewish cultural practice no longer mandated by a current divine command. Eventually it is recognized as 2) a hindrance to gospel advance among the nations.
“What they wouldn’t have understood was Peter saying, “baptism replaces circumcision.'” But I don’t need Peter to say that, or even consciously think that, for it to be a legitimate inference from what he says, in conjunction with the rest of the biblical witness. There is place for noting chronological progression having bearing on certain hermeneutical tasks; but not as a straightjacket for theological reflection.
You are convinced I have all these “problems,” but you are the one for whom his view alone is the “clear” and “obvious” one. I must be having “problems” because I don’t agree with you. From where I’m at, you haven’t identified one real inconsistency yet.
As a life-long baptist, whenever a paedobaptist would start to explain the reasons why, I immediately turned my ears off. Since baptists take the bible literally, and the covenantals admittedly said that they spiritualize a lot of the texts.
After 18 years of wondering in the wilderness these last 10 as a Reformed Baptist, I finally found some amazing information. Studying Sinclair Furguson, Dr. Dennis E. Johnson, and a YouTube sermon from Dr. Greg Price and a book by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, on the subject, I found that the baptists had it wrong, and the few paedobaptists I spoke to (two were OPC elders), either didn’t know the subject well or were just poor spokesman. Usually starting with Acts 16:31-34 (“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household… Immediately he and all his family were baptized … he had come to believe in God – he and his whole family.”). The order of things seemed so clear: first repentance/belief, then baptism. What could be plainer and simpler? So, never come to anyone with this verse as your first argument (only at the end of my studying did this verse make sense).
First, baptists interpret the NT by Daniels 9. Their literal interpretations, starting from the Old Testament, skewed their system and forced them to invent actions by Israel during the thousand years that I just couldn’t find, e.g. bringing back the OT rituals, etc.
Anyway, to get to where Paedobaptism is biblical, you have to start at the beginning. Ask questions about circumcision and why it was done, land the plane by explaining what Christ had done that allowed men and women, jew and gentile, to be grafted into the tree of life, and finally try to explain the difference between reading a text literally (every jot and title) and reading a book literary, which helps you see the tree for the forest!
This helped me. I had to study the issue and really listen to what was being written/taught, but this would have never happened if someone hadn’t shown me the dispensationalists in general, where not as literal as they claimed, and covenantalists were not being spiritual, but taking the entire bible as a guide and reading the text in a literary fashion, so I could get the entire and whole meaning.
It helps–a lot– when, instead of chalking one side or the other’s position up to simple confusion; you do begin at a much deeper level than where the contrast is typically engaged. There are two, distinct hermeneutics at work. Not too many OPC elders, or RB elders have that sort of grasp of the other side. They are each accustomed to dealing with their own people, and their own set of doctrines and practices that take for granted one background.
I’ll go further, and say that most Reformed pastors are content to know what they believe and why, and are short on the time necessary to also know what the Baptist believes, and why. He can usually be counted on to know what the Baptist believes, stated in his own terms; but not why.
Our present difficulty is one of the hazards of recent co-belligerency. Not that it is bad to have friends and allies, but the added pressure has been on for a hundred years to minimize the reason to be a Presbyterian, rather than a generic Evangelical or a generic TULIP. “Why can’t we agree? I guess you’re just a tiny bit confused. Let’s focus on why we don’t like DAISYs.”
“There is no doctor, however ancient, who does not attest that it has always been observed since the time of the apostles.” Seems an overstatement, but ultimately depends on Calvin’s definition of “doctor”.
In fact one thing that has long given me pause is that none of the ECFs who specifically did defend infant baptism used a convenantal paradigm to support their position. Cyprian perhaps came the closest, but really only gave a fairly loose rejoinder to a point of analogy between circumcision and baptism proposed by Fidus. All the others I’ve seen argue from a position of what could broadly be classified as baptismal regeneration.
Jewett claims that historically the covenantal paradigm was first proposed by Zwingli in response to the Anabaptists’ stance, which was then taken up and developed by other reformers like Bullinger.
Do you have historical information to the contrary? If so I would genuinely be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
Phil,
Some of the earliest Fathers (Barnabas, Irenaeus, Justin) taught a robust covenant theology against the Gnostics & those who set the OT against the NT. They also (likely) taught infant baptism.
No, they didn’t make 16th century arguments because they weren’t facing systematic opposition to infant baptism.
Bullinger et al harvested their covenant theology for similar reasons, to refute the dualism of the Anabaptists.
I’ve examined the quotes from Barnabas, Irenaeus and Justin proposed by some (generally partisan polemicists) as indicating infant baptism. But rather than being “likely” evidence, to me they seem extremely thin and even somewhat imaginary broth to bring to the table.
Tertullian was the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism, and he seems to treat infant baptism as an inadvisable and perhaps local innovation.
Even if some ECFs did have covenantal aspects to their theology, the fact remains that when specific arguments for infant baptism were given they are virtually always related to baptismal regeneration, not covenant theology. So to link the two would seem a bit arbitrary and anachronistic. This in turn poses the situation that the ECFs who did defend the practice and were arguably doing the right thing, they nonetheless did it for the wrong reasons. Again, I find this problematic on a number of fronts.
But, then, I realize we’ll probably just end up having to agree to disagree about a lot of this, so…
Dr. Clark, i seriously LOVE reading your blog!!!!
i came out of being taught too many lies in the “Charismatic” and Pentecostal /
“non-denominational” movement. In that vein, we were always taught that baptism was only for those who had, of their own “free will”, self-decided to take faith upon themselves and believe, and thus only in full immersion, negating any so-doing for children or any kind of generational covenant promise as is clearly evidenced in scriptures since i just now read this posting. Sorry i have never read much of Calvin before so this was delightful news to me, and especially since, at my own home church, I just witnessed the baby baptism of one of our family’s children according to the PCA method or tradition (albeit in an RPCNA church, because the family is military and moves around a bit).
PRAISE GOD FOR YOU, for helping me unravel this horrible tangled mess in my head that i thought was the gospel, but was not. Only now am i un-learning all the crap i was taught and re-learning the truth i was never taught.
sigh. THANK YOU for this!! And just for being you. 🙂
“agent practice” = “ancient practice”
(this one is funny) Should there be 1) a comma and an exclamation point inserted at: “the pope period” or 2) just a measly dot after “the pope” or after “period”?
thanks. typos fixed.