Looking for non-sacrificial doctrine

hedrick said:

I'm not sure what the problem is with mainline churches, including the Episcopal church that Albion is trying to sell you. Your theology seems pretty typical mainline. Is the problem sexual ethics? If so, you may be stuck. Churches that reexamine theology directly from Jesus teaching -- which seems to be your preference -- generally do the same with ethical teaching.

You seem to have some experience with mainline churches and didn't like the ethical teaching. What did you object to? Could it have been atypical congregations? I'm in a pretty liberal PCUSA church, and I wouldn't think our ethics would differ from other churches except in the hot-button sexual issues. But the conservative side of those is associated with traditional Biblical exegesis tightly enough that I'd expect it to be associated with traditional theology as well.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with women's ordination, but I do have problems with homosexual ordinations and marriages. I am also strongly pro-life, which for me includes being against the death penalty.

Albion said:

First, let me say I'm glad I've helped at all. Yours is a familiar problem but it's still close to unsolvable.

As for the Church(es) of the Nazarene, my immediate thought is that you might as well give them a visit in the near future. After all, you don't have much to lose except the drive and almost nothing is competing with them for your allegiance!

The CofN is a holiness church, so if you didn't care for the Pentecostals, this might turn out to be only modestly better. They're not liturgical and not much given to extra-Biblical theological concepts., although they're related to the Methodists with which you have had some connection in the past.

That said, I have known members and even clergy and they're quite nice people and didn't especially wear their doctrines on their sleeve or seek to convert me. I'd still think, really think, that The Episcopal Church is the better bet unless you find vestments, liturgies, crucifixes, saints, etc. to be objectionable, which I don't think is the case. The CofN would be devoid of all of that.

Click to expand...

I have visited a Nazarene church; the people were nice. I do have a problem with holiness doctrine, but there seems to be some degree of flexibility on that in the CotN. But it still doesn't really fit with what I believe.

You're right -- I don't have a problem with liturgy, vestments, etc., although I don't care for elaborate vestments.

I think my problem is that my views are too broad to fit nicely into any one tradition. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I don't feel at home there any more, except for some of their moral teachings -- abortion, sexuality.

Albion said:

First, let me say I'm glad I've helped at all. Yours is a familiar problem but it's still close to unsolvable.

As for the Church(es) of the Nazarene, my immediate thought is that you might as well give them a visit in the near future. After all, you don't have much to lose except the drive and almost nothing is competing with them for your allegiance!

The CofN is a holiness church, so if you didn't care for the Pentecostals, this might turn out to be only modestly better. They're not liturgical and not much given to extra-Biblical theological concepts., although they're related to the Methodists with which you have had some connection in the past.

That said, I have known members and even clergy and they're quite nice people and didn't especially wear their doctrines on their sleeve or seek to convert me. I'd still think, really think, that The Episcopal Church is the better bet unless you find vestments, liturgies, crucifixes, saints, etc. to be objectionable, which I don't think is the case. The CofN would be devoid of all of that.

Click to expand...

Albion, may I ask you, which denomination of Anglicanism are you a member of?

Albion said:

First, let me say I'm glad I've helped at all. Yours is a familiar problem but it's still close to unsolvable.

As for the Church(es) of the Nazarene, my immediate thought is that you might as well give them a visit in the near future. After all, you don't have much to lose except the drive and almost nothing is competing with them for your allegiance!

The CofN is a holiness church, so if you didn't care for the Pentecostals, this might turn out to be only modestly better. They're not liturgical and not much given to extra-Biblical theological concepts., although they're related to the Methodists with which you have had some connection in the past.

That said, I have known members and even clergy and they're quite nice people and didn't especially wear their doctrines on their sleeve or seek to convert me. I'd still think, really think, that The Episcopal Church is the better bet unless you find vestments, liturgies, crucifixes, saints, etc. to be objectionable, which I don't think is the case. The CofN would be devoid of all of that.

Click to expand...

Albion, how far do you think it would be reasonable or possible to drive? If you were in my shoes, how far do you think you would be willing or able to drive to church?

CelticRebel said:

Albion, how far do you think it would be reasonable or possible to drive? If you were in my shoes, how far do you think you would be willing or able to drive to church?

Click to expand...

My personal limit is about a half hour each way. Plus, any more than that tends to take you out of participating in mid-week Bible studies and other church functions. These might or might not be important to you if you become really committed to your church.

By the way, you also asked...
I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church. Wikipedia has a pretty good article if you want a quick reference.

Albion said:

My personal limit is about a half hour each way. Plus, any more than that tends to take you out of participating in mid-week Bible studies and other church functions. These might or might not be important to you if you become really committed to your church.

By the way, you also asked...
I'm a member of a Continuing Anglican church. Wikipedia has a pretty good article if you want a quick reference.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

And, yes, please give me the link to the Wikipedia article on your Continuing Anglican church.

CelticRebel said:

Thanks!

And, yes, please give me the link to the Wikipedia article on your Continuing Anglican church.

Click to expand...

Just enter --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement

I'll be glad to help if there are specifics you then need info on.

Albion said:

Just enter --



I'll be glad to help if there are specifics you then need info on.

Click to expand...

Thanks again. I was familiar with the Continuing Anglican movement, but there are no churches near me. I think the closest, that I know of, is about two hours or more away.

Which body is your church a part of?

CelticRebel said:

Thanks again. I was familiar with the Continuing Anglican movement, but there are no churches near me. I think the closest, that I know of, is about two hours or more away.

Which body is your church a part of?

Click to expand...

I don't like to personalize these requests for information about Continuing Anglicanism, but I'd be happy to belong to any of the true Continuing churches. There are a few splinters that call themselves Continuing Anglican which are not so by definition. However, if you are sure that none at all is within that two hour range--and I'm assuming no ACNA church either???--I probably can't help much. You could always send me a PM if you want to discuss in more detail.

Albion said:

I don't like to personalize these requests for information about Continuing Anglicanism, but I'd be happy to belong to any of the true Continuing churches. There are a few splinters that call themselves Continuing Anglican which are not so by definition. However, if you are sure that none at all is within that two hour range--and I'm assuming no ACNA church either???--I probably can't help much. You could always send me a PM if you want to discuss in more detail.

Click to expand...

I know the nearest ACNA church is 90 minutes away, and an AMiA church is about an hour away.

I'll PM you, if I have enough posts for that.

I need three more posts........................................

I need two more posts....................................

I need one more post.....................................

Albion said:

I don't like to personalize these requests for information about Continuing Anglicanism, but I'd be happy to belong to any of the true Continuing churches. There are a few splinters that call themselves Continuing Anglican which are not so by definition. However, if you are sure that none at all is within that two hour range--and I'm assuming no ACNA church either???--I probably can't help much. You could always send me a PM if you want to discuss in more detail.

Click to expand...

Do you think it is possible to be an Anglican if you don't believe in infant baptism?

CelticRebel said:

Do you think it is possible to be an Anglican if you don't believe in infant baptism?

Click to expand...

It would be just about impossible. They're not going to throw you out through the front door, of course, but there's no way to fit such a belief in with Anglicanism and have it be seen as just another of those areas where Anglicans of different types agree to disagree.

I know a few Anglicans who are well-versed in theology and church history and would be considered veeerrrry Evangelical or Low Church by anyone's standards...and even they wouldn't go that far.

They would say that baptism is not regenerative, which is the usual reason people oppose infant baptism, and they agree like all of us that anyone who is baptized as an infant still has to make a decision for Christ at some time later in his life, but these Anglicans still have to yield to the logic and scriptural support for the baptism of young children itself.

Albion said:

It would be just about impossible. They're not going to throw you out through the front door, of course, but there's no way to fit such a belief in with Anglicanism and have it be seen as just another of those areas where Anglicans of different types agree to disagree.

I know a few Anglicans who are well-versed in theology and church history and would be considered veeerrrry Evangelical or Low Church by anyone's standards...and even they wouldn't go that far.

They would say that baptism is not regenerative, which is the usual reason people oppose infant baptism, and they agree like all of us that anyone who is baptized as an infant still has to make a decision for Christ at some time later in his life, but these Anglicans still have to yield to the logic and scriptural support for the baptism of young children itself.

Click to expand...

And just when I had come to agreement with you that Anglicanism was where I probably belonged.

I had a very long struggle with infant baptism. I read everything I could get my hands on about it. I went through all kinds of reasoning within myself and tortured logic trying to find a way I could believe it and accept it. I never could.

I can see scriptural support for the baptism of young children -- if they are old enough to express belief and faith in Jesus. Scriptural support for infant baptism I do not see. And as I said, I have studied everything I could find on the subject.

One writing that had a significant effect on me was the following from a former Presbyterian pastor turned Baptist. I don't agree with his Reformed theology, though. Since I don't have nearly enough posts yet to put a link in, I'll post the entire article and break it into several parts. I hope it's okay to do that. The article is long, but it's important enough that I wanted to share it here.

Copyright © 1998 Founders Press. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.
Dr. Fred Malone is the Pastor of First Baptist Church, Clinton, Louisiana. He received the Master of Divinity degree from Reformed Theological Seminary and the PhD from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Malone also serves as a trustee of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Preface
This pamphlet is not intended to be a definitive work on baptism. Originally written in 1977, it is simply a journal I narrated for myself and for my friends who are interested in understanding why I moved from a paedobaptist (infant baptism) position to a Baptist (disciples/confessors’ baptism only) position. This journal has been edited for use as a booklet, but I have reserved a full revision for an upcoming book.
Any discussion about baptism, as with other doctrines in Scripture, is fruitless unless all parties are willing to sit down with open Bibles, open minds, and prayer-kept hearts. Infant baptism is an emotional issue because it involves our children and the promises of salvation to them. I simply ask that those who challenge my conclusions would sincerely and charitably study my arguments before they pass judgment.
It would have been easy to pass over this controversial topic and remain in the sphere of the Presbyterian Church. It still saddens my heart that my vows required me to withdraw myself voluntarily from that arena of service with its fellowship and opportunities. However, my conscience and practice must be ruled by Christ Himself through the guidance of His written Word and by no other man, tradition, or logical extension. Therefore, this journal sets forth what I understand to be His guidance of me through the Scriptures.


Stated briefly, as a covenant theologian I have come to believe that according to the Bible, the only proper subjects for Christian baptism are disciples of Christ. Jesus and His disciples “made and baptized more disciples than John” (Jn. 4:1). First they became disciples, then they were baptized. Jesus and the apostles baptized people who had become believers (“disciples”). Further, the Great Commission commands to “make disciples of all the nations [individuals from all nations, not the national entities], baptizing them [those who were made disciples, my emphasis] . . . teaching them [the disciples, my emphasis] to observe all things that I commanded you” (Mt. 28:19-20). This is exactly what happened at Pentecost. Only those who “gladly received his [Peter’s] word were baptized” (Acts 2:41), not infant children of believers. In the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession, baptism and its subjects are included as elements of worship under the regulative principle of worship, positively instituted by God and “limited by His own revealed will” (Westminster Confession, chapt. 21, sect. 1; Second London Baptist Confession, chapt. 22, sect. 1). The only form of baptism which fits this principle is that which was “instituted” and “prescribed in the Holy Scripture;” that is, baptism of disciples/confessors, not of infants.


Introduction

The greatest struggle in my theology has not been, oddly enough, the five points of Calvinism and the Reformed faith. I find these clear and well-defined from Genesis to Revelation. Rather, the thorn in my theological flesh has been baptism.


Although I was raised a Baptist, in seminary I came to the paedobaptist position because of several points of theology. These included the covenant with Abraham, the relationship between circumcision and baptism, the supposed disjunction between John’s and Jesus’ baptisms and Christian baptism, the argument of silence, the proof-texts concerning children in the covenant, and the testimony of tradition. The work which influenced me most was John Murray’s Christian Baptism.
As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.


In any case, after graduation I reexamined my position on infant baptism and found many inconsistencies that, for whatever reasons, I did not find in seminary. I have attempted to let most of my work be as original as possible. However, two books which helped me verbalize many things already discovered are Should Infants Be Baptized?, by T. E. Watson, and The Children of Abraham, by David Kingdon. I highly recommend these works to my paedobaptist and Baptist friends.
I have dealt only with the proper subjects of baptism because I believe this to be the most important factor with which to begin. John Calvin himself believed that the Bible teaches immersion and that the early church practiced immersion (Institutes IV. xv. 19). I accept Calvin’s analysis though he allowed diverse practices.


As I cover each point of theology in an informal narrative fashion, I hope to give glory to God by letting His infallible Word be the absolute and final authority for each conclusion. My continual prayer is for the Holy Spirit to illumine my mind and the mind of the reader as we gaze together into the mind of God as revealed in the written Word.

The Thorn

The change to Baptist convictions began as I was reading Exodus 12 as part of my devotional exercises. Surely I had read it many times before, but this time a question pestered my soul. In the institution of the Passover feast, I read: “And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever [emphasis added]” (Ex. 12:24). My question concerned the participation of the children in the feast, which is a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper. And if they did participate, at what age did they begin? Further, what does this have to say about children’s participation in the Lord’s Supper? As I meditated, I wondered if this might not be simply a command to continue the ordinance from parent to child in unbroken generations. Therefore, I decided to research the point for a clearer understanding.


I concluded that the text can favor the participation of the household children of any age in the feast as well as be a command to continue the ordinance indefinitely. That the word “forever” implies the perpetuity of the ordinance is obvious. But in the covenant family context, the Hebrew vav conjunction (“and”) seems to define the ordinance for all children of the household as well. The context seems to support this inclusion of the children in the meal because there were no other leavened breads and meats allowed to be present in the household (12:19,20,28). With the exception of infants still on the breast, there was literally nothing left for the children to eat but the Passover meal! Some speculate that the children’s question about the meal (v. 26) indicates their lack of participation in it. However, they certainly could have participated in the meal and even been able to ask the question about it long before they had the conceptual ability to understand its import.
I found it interesting how Berkhof and Murray differed regarding this situation, yet both disagreed with paedocommunion. Berkhof states:
While admitting that Old Testament children participated in the Passover, Berkhof excludes them from the Lord’s Supper because the New Testament prescribes self-examination and discerning the body.
Murray, on the other hand, discounts the interpretation that infants participated in the Passover for two reasons: (1) there is no mention of infants in the text, and (2) the diet was not suitable for infants. One problem with Murray’s objections is that the same reasoning may be consistently applied to the silence concerning infants in household baptisms. Also, his contention is presumptuous, that the children were of an age to understand the meaning of the Passover when they asked what it meant. How many times have our own children asked questions about Christ or the Lord’s Supper and were not able to understand the answers? Further, Murray does not recognize that children are capable of ingesting both unleavened bread and meat as infants before one year of age (Christian Baptism, pp. 76-79).


Therefore, I conclude from the text, context, and supporting Reformed comment that the children of the household who were capable of ingesting meat and unleavened bread partook of the Passover feast simply by their Old Covenant position in the household.
What are the implications of this fact? It amazed me that I ran across an article in the Open Letter the next month (1977), using this same fact for the basis of “Covenant Children’s” communion. This publication by the Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians printed an article by the pastor of Canal Street Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, advocating the passage of the P.C.U.S. amendment allowing baptized infant children entrance to the Lord’s Table as soon as they are able to take the elements! The argument was based upon the transformation of circumcision into infant baptism as the principle for transforming the subjects of the Passover into the subjects of the Lord’s Supper.
As I began to assimilate and analyze this article, several arguments against its conclusions came to mind. The two clearest were that (1) there is the scripturally-instituted command to examine oneself before participating, and (2) there is no positive command to include infants and small children in the supper. The first is an argument of precept according to the regulative principle of Scripture, and the second an argument of silence and inference. Both arguments seem to limit participation in the Lord’s Supper observance to baptized disciples who are capable of understanding the meaning of the supper and are able to examine their inward spiritual motivation when taking it. I concluded, along with most Reformed theologians, that these two arguments are sufficient to show the error of infant or covenant communion.
What now is my point? Simply this: Why is New Testament regulation sufficient to define the subjects of the Lord’s Supper but not infant baptism? Assuming that household children in the Old Covenant administration were allowed to participate in the Passover feast as soon as they were able to consume the elements, and assuming that household children in the New Covenant administration are not allowed to participate until professing faith and self-examination are evidenced, my questions are:

• What has changed in the application of the covenant family concept from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant?
• Why does the household child participate in the Passover and not in the Lord’s Supper?
• Has the New Covenant child of believers less blessings than the household Old Covenant child?
• What exactly are the covenant blessings for the New Covenant household child, if any?

The String of Pearls

While I recognized disagreement concerning the conclusion that the Old Covenant children participated in the Passover by covenant position, there remained in my mind a growing desire to reexamine the biblical basis for infant baptism. I thought that perhaps God was guiding me to restudy the doctrine so that I might be confirmed in my own mind that earlier in seminary I had not let subjective influences guide my search for objective truth. However, I reasoned that if I came to be a Baptist I had nothing to lose in accepting God’s truth in the Word. Either way, I would be stronger in the end.


While all paedobaptist covenant theologians that I have read heartily agree that there is no positive command to baptize covenant infants, they cite what can appear to be an impressive number of individual pearls which can be strung together as a beautiful and unified necklace. This is the principle of hermeneutics called “good and necessary inference.” John Murray has stated this principle for infant baptism:
The problem with this statement is that it allows Old Testament inference from the Abrahamic Covenant to overrule the clearer and final New Testament fulfillment, prescription, and institution by revelation. According to Murray, one would have to present a command or example against infant baptism to overrule his Old Testament inference, even if it was never practiced. This is an absurd position hermeneutically.
The principle of “good and necessary inference” is legitimately used to support the cessation of such things as written revelation and modern day apostles. Yet in these cases, the basis for such inference is always New Testament revelation, not Old Testament implication. “The New is in the Old concealed; and the Old is in the New revealed” is an agreed upon hermeneutic which places more authority upon New Testament institution than upon Old Testament inference.


There may be an impressive collection of pearls strung upon the string of “good and necessary inference,” yet both T. E. Watson and Herman Hoeksema (Believers and Their Seed) have aptly demonstrated that there is enough disagreement among covenant paedobaptist theologians on each specific pearl to warrant a reexamination of the “good and necessary inference” which strings them all together. Since this is a brief journal, I will simply use Watson’s well-documented book (Should Infants Be Baptized?) to show that there is serious disagreement regarding specific Scriptures among major Reformed theologians on almost every point and ground supporting infant baptism.
What then are the pearls on the string? Since I am dealing with my own acceptance of paedobaptism, here are the pearls whose beauty caused me to add them to my string:

1. The covenant theology of the Old and New Testaments
2. The relationship between circumcision and baptism
3. The proof-texts concerning baptism
4. Jesus’ attitude toward the children
5. The sanctification of believers’ children
6. The disjunction of the baptism of John’s and Christian baptism
7. The argument of silence
8. The argument of expanded blessings
9. The testimony of tradition

I have not dealt with mode in this journal because the issue of the biblical subjects of baptism is a far more important one.

1
The First Pearl
Covenant Theology in the Old and New Testaments

The primary basis for the baptism of the covenant child is claimed to be found in God’s promise of covenant blessing to Abraham and to his “seed.” Abraham was justified by faith through believing in God’s promises to be his God and to make him the father of many nations (Gen. 12-17; Rom. 4). He and his “seed” would inherit Canaan as an everlasting possession. And, most important of all, the Lord promised to be the God of Abraham and of his “seed.” Then God granted the sign of this covenant, circumcision, to Abraham and to his “seed” forever. This sign was also to be administered to all males in the household, born and bought. Since Abraham is called “the father of us all” (Rom. 4:16), and since Christians are referred to as “Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:29) and “heirs according to the promise,” it seems “good and necessary” to infer that the sign of New Testament baptism should be applied to the children of Abraham’s “seed” of faith as circumcision was applied to the children of Abraham’s “seed” of flesh (Col. 2:11,12). This is a compelling pearl for infant baptism.
The Covenant Participants

Several questions, however, must be put to this conclusion. First, if Christians–Jewish or Gentile–are the “seed” of Abraham, should we both claim physical Canaan as our rightful territory and “everlasting” possession as well? Second, if circumcision is a “forever” sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, then why do the New Covenant “seed” of Abraham not continue circumcision as a religious act? And, third, should Christians baptize not only infants but also all males bought or born into their homes?


It has often been objected that it is not legitimate to identify both children and physical land in the same category concerning the covenant promises to Abraham. I quite agree. However, what about the 318 male servants of the household of Abraham who were circumcised by virtue of their being in Abraham’s household? How does this aspect of people in the covenant household, not land, apply in the New Covenant application of the Abrahamic Covenant?


There was a theological question concerning slaves’ baptism in the pre-Civil War South among Presbyterians. Meredith Kline attempts to deal with this issue of the application of covenantal household authority in the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant in his book, By Oath Consigned (pp. 94-102). However, Kline is unclear about whether or not the baptism of slaves is a legitimate application in the New Covenant administration. He shies away from saying that this practice is legitimate because of the silence of the New Testament and the difficulty of church discipline (p. 98). On the other hand, in the same paragraph, he seems to allow the plausibility of servant baptism in certain mission situations for temporary cultural expediency. The decision seems to be left to the individual covenant head in his application of the principles of culture, family, and church to his particular situation. The question of what is the scriptural way of handling one’s slaves in this regard is really not answered. Are covenant theology and the New Covenant participant so loosely defined?
Along with most covenant theologians, I conclude that these land and servant elements of the Abrahamic Covenant do not presently apply to the New Testament Christian and church since Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world” nor is it a theocratic nation, yet is still the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Most of us believe that Christians will possess Canaan in the New Heavens and the New Earth but not in the present administration of things. Nor do any seriously believe in servant baptism.
It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham’s seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, “In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation.” Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian’s children must also honestly deal with the “forever” implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.


Therefore, the main question for me is: how does the Scripture apply the Old Testament promises which are given to Abraham and his “seed” to the New Covenant fulfillment in the Christian and the church? Continuing, for the moment, to assume that baptism is the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision, let us define from Scripture the essence of the New Covenant and who exactly are the “seed” of Abraham who should receive the New Covenant sign and blessings.
The New Covenant Described

One of the key passages that must be considered in defining the meaning of the New Covenant is Jeremiah 31. In vv. 27-30, God declares that after the prophesied captivity each man will bear the responsibility for his own spiritual condition before God in a new way. Continuing this change of emphasis to individual responsibility in vv. 31-34, God defines a new basis for covenant membership and blessing in the New Covenant which is different from the basis for membership and blessing in the Old Covenant. In contrasting the Old and New Covenants, God’s definition of the difference is that of heart renewal in each and every member of the New Covenant.


Initially, to become a participant in the Abrahamic Covenant and its continuation at Sinai, one simply had to be born into the physical descent of Abraham. Physical membership in this covenant was signified by circumcision, but one was cut off from the salvation of the covenant if he did not circumcise his heart as well (Deut. 10:16). However, it is important to note that many whose hearts were never circumcised continued to participate in visible Israel. Yet they were not visibly cut off from God’s covenant people. Thus, the doctrine of the faithful remnant within physical Israel arose in the prophets (Jer. 23:1-6; 31:7). This remnant would come to fruition and fulfillment during the reign of “a Branch of righteousness” from David’s line. It is this faithful remnant which is raised up in the days of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:7, 32-34).
Participation in the New Covenant, which is “not like” the Old Covenant, is defined as experiencing the reality of heart-religion in each and every member (Jer. 31:33,34). The New Covenant does not just introduce new blessings. Rather, all New Covenant members actually have the Law written on their hearts (“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts”), receive the forgiveness of sins (“I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more”), and know the Lord (“For they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord”).


This definition says nothing of participation in the New Covenant blessings by physical descent alone. Rather, the participants whom Jeremiah describes are the true “Israel” (Gal. 6:16). They are “the children of the promise,” a faithful remnant according to God’s “election of grace” (Rom. 9:6-8) in which every true member knows the Lord. This New Covenant in which God writes His Law on the heart of each one in the covenant is also defined in Eze. 36:24-28 as the time when God puts His Spirit within and gives a new heart that will be careful to observe His ordinances. This promise of the Spirit is also spoken to the whole house of Israel, indicating that this new heart will be evident in the nation as a whole. In fact, Gal. 3:14,29 defines the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in the New Covenant as the gift of the Spirit to all his “seed,” i.e., Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom. 4; see also the explanation of the promise in Acts 2:39 below).


Paedobaptist theologian, Herman Ridderbos, believes that Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God and its born again members is “determined by the idea of the covenant.” Jesus’ reference to the New Covenant of Jer. 31 at the Last Supper affirms this understanding. Thus, the idea of God’s people takes on a more restricted meaning in the New Covenant:
Therefore, based upon Jer. 31:31-34 and its description of regeneration in the New Covenant participants, and in light of Christ’s definition of the entrance requirements to the kingdom (Jn. 3:5,6) and church (Mt. 16:16-18), I cannot say that children of believers are “in” the New Covenant or church or kingdom or “God’s people” until they show, by outward confession, evidence of regeneration.


It has been objected that perhaps Jer. 31:34 is an eschatological reference because of the stated lack of need for anyone to teach his neighbor and brother. Therefore, the argument goes, this describes the church triumphant. Do we not need to teach each other in the New Covenant? Of course! But in addressing Israel, God is referring to neighbors and brothers in the New Covenant Israel! There is no need to evangelize the participants in the New Covenant because they all know the Lord! Of course we teach each other to observe all that Christ commanded us (Mt. 28:18-20). But there is no need to teach those in the New Covenant to “know the Lord” because they already know Him, having been taught by God Himself (Jn. 6:44,45; 1 Jn. 2:27; 1 Th. 4:9). For this reason, the “least to the greatest” of those in the New Covenant are greater than John the Baptist, who was regenerated in the womb (Mt. 11:11). Therefore, I am not willing to concede that a believer’s child is automatically in the New Covenant and is thereby greater than John the Baptist, until he/she shows evidence of regeneration by a profession of faith in Christ. Even if our Sovereign God were to regenerate children of believers in the womb, they should not be considered “in” the New Covenant until they show the evidence of regeneration by repentance and faith. This is the uniform command and example of the New Testament, and it precedes New Covenant baptism.
The New Covenant Sacrifice

To say that all physical infants of believers are “in” the New Covenant as the infants of Abraham were “in” the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption. Hebrews 9 reminds us that God’s covenant requires mediation through blood. The Passover Lamb brought physical deliverance for all Israel because all ate it. The Annual Atonement (Lev. 16) was offered on behalf of the whole assembly, all Israel. Of course, these sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience, but their design was for the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. If Christ’s sacrifice is offered up only for His elect people as the “New Covenant in My blood” (Lk. 22:20; Mk. 14:24), how can the unregenerate children of believers be said to be “in” the New Covenant, church, and kingdom without an effectual Mediator? They cannot. Indeed, Heb. 9:15 defines Christ as an effectual Mediator of the New Covenant to insure that “those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” Can one be said to be “in” the New Covenant or church without a Mediator? Not on the basis of the concept of the church in the New Testament. Though all would agree that false professors were addressed as members of the church for which Christ’s effectual blood was shed, yet they were so addressed on the basis of their profession, not on the basis of their parents’ faith. Even then, they were to be put out of the church if their profession proved spurious by their life. Yet there was some outward evidence to designate them “in” the church. But there is no clear basis for saying infants of believers are “in” the church unless we are also willing to say that they are “in” the “church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). No, if an infant is said to be “in” the New Covenant administration of the one covenant of grace and “in” the church without effectual mediation, severe violence is done to the biblical truth that “Christ loved the church and give Himself up for her.” Can an unregenerate infant be called “in” the church by Christ’s effectual mediation and never receive salvation? Absolutely not. Therefore, violence is done to the doctrine of particular redemption.


The covenant of grace requires the blood of an effectual Mediator. Christ is the Circumcision and Isaac of the Abrahamic Covenant. Christ is the Paschal Lamb and Annual Atonement for its continuation through Sinai. And Christ is the sole Mediator of the New Covenant fulfillment as the effectual sacrifice for all those considered “in” the New Covenant, Christ’s redeemed church. These redeemed ones–and only these–are the New Covenant participants.

The Seed of Abraham

This brings us to the next question: exactly who are the “seed” of the Abrahamic Covenant who should receive the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision? In Romans 4, where Abraham is called “the father of us all,” we find that God has fulfilled His promise to him to become the father of many nations by defining his “seed” as those who are “of the faith of Abraham” (v. 16). Whether they are uncircumcised or circumcised, his “seed” are those who possess “the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised” (v. 11,12). There is no mention of the physical descendants of believers as included in the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant; rather, it is only those who actually have obtained “the righteousness of faith” by receiving Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:12,13).


In Galatians 3, Paul clearly indicates that physical descent and circumcision have no necessary relationship to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Covenant. The promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to Abraham and to his one “seed,” named Christ (3:16). Therefore, the New Covenant fulfillment of the promise to make Abraham the father of many nations is through Christ–his fulfilled “seed”–and all who have faith in Him. The actual definition of the Abrahamic “seed” is “those who are of faith” (vv. 7,9). If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s “seed,” “heirs according to the promise” (v. 29). The only definition of the “seed” of Abraham in the New Covenant is Christ and His “seed” who have experienced the reality of saving faith, i.e., the Abrahamic promise of the Spirit (vv. 14,29).
Who is the “seed” of Christ to whom belong the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant? It is those who belong to Christ (Gal. 3:29) and those alone, revealed by their faith. The only ones who have a claim to the inheritance of God are the children of God by the Spirit’s regeneration (Rom. 8:9,14-17; Jn. 1:12-14). Therefore, no one is considered an inheritor of the Abrahamic promises until by faith he becomes a “seed” of Abraham through Christ, who is the literal fulfillment of Abraham’s “seed.” And we “belong to Christ” only through the faith that evidences regeneration (Gal. 3:22,29).


Also, if we continue to assume that baptism is the counterpart of circumcision, we are faced with the problem of verse 27 where all (without distinction between infants and adults) who were baptized into Christ have clothed themselves with Christ. It is only prejudice that keeps one from defining this in terms of water baptism (see Marston, “Are You a Biblical Baptist?”, pp. 21,22). Paul is alluding to their experience of union with Christ, symbolized by their confirming experience of water baptism. No one would claim that all the participants in the Old Covenant circumcision experienced the reality of saving faith. Nor would anyone claim that all who receive disciples’ baptism have saving faith. Yet the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise is a “seed” consisting of all who are “of faith,” who receive the Abrahamic promise of the Spirit, and who confess their faith through baptism as the outward sign.


The Abrahamic Covenant was entered by circumcision; the New Covenant is entered by faith in Christ. Only Abraham’s New Covenant “seed” of faith should receive the New Covenant sign of baptism.
Now, you may be thinking, Does this really say anything that actually prohibits the giving of the covenant sign of baptism to the children of Abraham’s New Covenant “seed”? Before I answer that question, let us first examine the Scriptures to determine the significance of circumcision in relation to the New Covenant.


2
The Second Pearl

The Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism
Circumcision is the second pearl on the string of “good and necessary inference.” What exactly is the counterpart of circumcision in the New Covenant? Is it water baptism? What exactly does the Scripture say about the implications of circumcision in the New Covenant?
Physical Circumcision and Heart Circumcision

In Rom. 2:28,29, we find that circumcision was always meant to represent the inward work of the Spirit on the heart. According to the principles of typological interpretation, physical circumcision is the type and regeneration is the antitype or fulfillment. This was the definition of a true Jew, whether of Jewish or Gentile descent. The outward sign of circumcision was to symbolize that which God desired inwardly of the heart. But more than that, the reality of the symbol also had to be present in order for a person to be a true Jew or to receive all of God’s covenant blessings.
This same truth is taught in Rom. 9:6-8, where Paul says that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” This is another reference to the faithful remnant idea which began in the physical nation of Abraham’s descendants and came to fruition in the New Covenant members or church. This is further explained in Rom. 4:12, where the promised “seed” of Abraham consists not of those of physical descent only, but those who are of the faith of their father Abraham. These, and these only, are his fulfilled “seed” (Rom. 4:23). It is those who are of faith, Jew and Gentile, who are the “seed” of Abraham. In all these Scriptures, the true Jews, or Abraham’s “seed,” in fulfillment of God’s promise to him, are those who have the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, which is exhibited by faith in Christ.