Fesko On The Red Sea And Infant Baptism

Whenever I teach on any doctrine, I encourage my students to look at the unfolding history of redemption and trace the doctrinal line from Genesis to Revelation to ensure they get a full-orbed picture. In this case, the Apostle Paul’s inerrant and infallible commentary on the Old Testament shows us that Scripture does indeed reveal infant baptism. Paul’s explanation of the Red Sea crossing gives us a typological picture of baptism, even the baptism of infants. But this typological portrait is not pointing forward to the sacrament of baptism. Rather, both the Red Sea crossing and the sacrament of baptism point to the baptism of the Spirit that Christ performed when he ascended to the Father’s right hand. A clear view of the Red Sea baptism thus better equips us to appreciate Christ’s baptism of the church and the significance of baptism, especially infant baptism.

Read more»

J. V. Fesko | “Infant Baptism and the Red Sea Crossing” | January 2025


RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization


    Post authored by:

  • Tony Phelps
    Author Image

    Tony grew up in Rhode Island. He was educated at BA (University of Rhode Island) and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He worked in the insurance industry for ten years. He planted a PCA church in Wakefield, RI where he served for eleven years. In 2015–18 he pastored Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA) in Colorado Springs. He is currently pastor of Living Hope (OPC). Tony is married to Donna and together they have three children.

    More by Tony Phelps ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


2 comments

  1. I really appreciated the article but please help me understand: If the thing signified by the sign of baptism is Christ’s spiritual baptism of the church (or the recipients being spiritually baptized into Christ), then this seems to me to be an argument for credobaptism and not paedobaptism. I understand that Dr. Fesko is making the argument that since the Mosaic body included infants then the Christian body should include infants. However, arguing sign and thing signified seems to me to support credobaptism only since profession and repentance are marks of the presence of the Spirit, albeit not infallibly. Therefore, the visible church (whether baptist or P&R during credobaptism) would only apply the sign to those who display marks of the thing signified.
    Please clarify.

    In Christ,
    A humble baptist brother

    • Jerrid,

      The Reformed argument is that God administers his covenant of grace, through which he brings his elect to new life and true faith. The Baptist case is that those who have the benefits of the covenant of grace may be admitted to the external administration of the covenant of grace.

      For us, the church going through the Red Sea is a typological administration of the covenant of grace. We don’t assume that those who participated had the res significata but they did participate in the external administration of the signum and the sigilla, which is why Paul appealed to that episode to instruct the church at Corinth.

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.