Covenant Baptism: A Primer for Baptists
While the debate about whether to baptize infants or not has raged for five centuries, we can and should seek unity as brothers and sisters in Christ. Baptism actually unites us by identifying us as part of the visible people of God, so let the world see our unity rather than division as we approach any differences with love, humility, and submission to Scripture.
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Acts 2:37-39, ESV
Who should be baptized? This question has sparked intense debate amongst Reformed Christians ever since the early days of the Reformation. As someone who has attended baptistic churches until I recently joined a pedobaptist church (where infants are baptized). In order to become a deacon I needed to be able to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith which meant accepting the pedobaptist position. I entered that study believing that the Presbyterian version of pedobaptism—referred to as covenant baptism—was valid and biblical while believer’s baptism was preferrable. I came out of that study with a reversed position: believer’s baptism is a valid and biblical position but covenant baptism better aligns with what the whole of Scripture teaches. My purpose in this post is not to convince Baptists to begin baptizing their infants but to explain simply what covenant baptism is, why it is biblical, and how we can maintain unity in the Body of Christ regarding this topic.
What Covenant Baptism Is and Isn’t
First, it is important to define the actual question we are addressing. The question is not whether to baptize believers or infants, since Scripture is very clear that we are to baptize believers. Every example of baptism we see in Scripture is of new converts, so a church must baptize them and require of them a profession of faith in order to be biblical. The question is not whether to baptize infants or believers but whether or not to baptize the infants of believers. Scripture gives no clear examples of infants being baptized or being excluded from baptism, so there is room for genuine Christians to differ on this and still practice baptism biblically. To paraphrase Romans 14, the church that baptizes infants does so in honor of the Lord and the church that refrains does so in honor of the Lord. Let not the one who baptizes infants look down on the one who refrains, and let not the one who refrains cast judgment on the one who baptizes infants, for God has welcomed both! So contrary to the perception of some Baptists, pedobaptists do not reject the baptism of converts following a profession of faith.
Another major difficulty Baptists have with pedobaptists is the assumption that baptism is considered part of salvation or a guarantee of salvation. They would be correct in this regarding the Catholic and Lutheran pedobaptist views (baptismal regeneration), but not covenant baptism. It is absolutely vital to differentiate between the two. Covenant baptism of infants is not part of salvation and is not seen as a guarantee of salvation. Instead, covenant baptism refers to the view that both believers and their children should receive baptism as the new covenant sign of entrance into the visible people of God. It largely mirrors circumcision as the sign of entrance into the visible church and is therefore separate from actual regeneration. Churches that faithfully practice covenant baptism make this distinction very clear in their baptism liturgies. In these ways, covenant baptism answers two of the biggest Baptist objections to pedobaptism.
Why Covenant Baptism is Biblical
But is covenant baptism biblical? Baptists often fail to see pedobaptism as biblical because pedobaptists often do a poor job of proving it from Scripture. They often point to examples of entire households being baptized—of Cornelius (Acts 10:48), Lydia (Acts 16:14), the Philippian jailer (Acts 15:33), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16)—which would include any infants. But this argument is unsatisfying since the text does not mention infants in any of these households. Pedobaptists then point to passages about the inclusion of children, such as Jesus calling little children to Himself and saying that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16) or Peter at Pentecost saying the promise “is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39). They also point out the similarities between baptism and circumcision, but Baptists often have difficulty seeing a strong enough connection to justify pedobaptism. All of these individual bricks are therefore easy for the Baptist to topple, giving the appearance that pedobaptists are grasping at straws for anything in the Bible to support their position. This is because pedobaptists have failed to establish the foundation on which all of these bricks rest to form a biblically-sound structure.
That foundation is covenant theology, which we have examined in recent posts. We saw that all of the covenants are corporate in nature and included children. We then saw the nature of shared responsibility and how that relates to the generational nature of the covenants and the role of representation. Last time we saw how those the Bible calls worthless were members of the covenant people of Israel but were ultimately unregenerate. From all of this, we see that families—as the central focus of God’s work—have always entered into the covenants, with parents (specifically fathers) representing their children, so they were all considered to be part of the people of God. Some of them were faithful while others were not. For the faithful, the covenant sign signified their inclusion in the invisible church, being united with Christ and therefore guaranteed to inherit the blessings of the covenant. For the unfaithful, the covenant sign signified that they were not part of the invisible church, being separate from Christ and therefore guaranteed to inherit the curses of the covenant. This was the context into which the New Covenant came, so it should come as no surprise that we see similar language in the New Testament. From the earliest days of the Church, the covenant was for those who placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and their children (Acts 2:39). In both Testaments, we see households joined the people of God. Throughout the Old Testament we see the visible people of God containing those who are faithful and those who fall away: righteous Seth vs. unrighteous Cain, Shem vs. Canaan, Isaac vs. Ishmael, Jacob vs. Esau, etc. During the exodus, we see the whole nation entering into the covenant, but many fell away:
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1 Corinthians 10:1-5, ESV
-
Christian Life in a Declining Empire
Whatever ruling power and prevailing culture exists in a given locale, the people of God have their directions from His hand and we are to do our best, by His grace and help, to obey him, no matter the cost (and it could be very costly). If our influence has diminished in this American empire, maybe it will be of help to build back from the rubble that seems inevitable.
One of the most difficult eras for the people of God in the Old Testament is when they found themselves in exile many miles away from their homeland. A succession of world powers culminated with a vast Babylonian empire engulfing a weakened Israel. For the faithful of Israel, those who loved God and trusted Him, the time in Babylonian challenged their ability to follow God’s standards. The pressures to assimilate into the godless Babylonian culture was constant.
In some sense, American Christians are increasingly finding themselves in a modern Babylon. Modern American culture has taken a stark turn away from biblical views and practices and in many cases stands in total opposition. What are Christians to do in such a time and place? Here is the prophet Jeremiah’s timeless counsel to faithful Israelites (those seeking to honor God’s Word) who found themselves in a pagan land that was antagonistic to their faith in the true and living God:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. Jeremiah 29:4–7
Generally, we (Christians) are to do our best to settle in and be productive citizens where God has placed us. This does not mean we should be passive in our actions to impact the culture for Christ. Frankly, I think those kinds of efforts have been happening for years. At this point, it has not seemed to be God’s will that our efforts drastically influence the way people act and think in America. So what do we do when things seem to be sliding against us?
Back to Jeremiah’s counsel to faithful Israelites living in Babylon: We are to honor God’s order for life and family, generation to generation, no matter what madness surrounds us culturally. Also, we should be crying out to the Lord for him to rescue “the city” from godless leadership and an increasingly blind and foolish citizenry. We seem to be living in a society that is in free fall toward some kind of collapse. I might be wrong. I hope I am wrong.
The history of earthly empires is repetitive. Nations that perceive themselves as great and above God’s Law are eventually humbled by a nation or nations that are “greater.” It seems like our country thinks itself above God’s wise rule. The kinds of actions taken recently at a legislative level reveal an arrogance about our societal autonomy. There is a notion that “we” can decide for ourselves what is ethical and right.
The ultimate slap in the face of biblical ethics was the naming of a recent wicked piece of legislation, “The Respect for Marriage Act.” This legislation elevates a rebellious society’s desired practice over God’s designed foundational order for civilization. There is no doubt, America is an empire in serious decline. Our national fate will be no different than the godless empires of the past if there is not a sweeping turn from evil soon.
Assyria was “great” until Babylon became greater. Babylon was “great” until Persia was greater. Persia was “great” until Greece was greater. Greece was “great” until Rome was greater, etc., etc.
Whatever ruling power and prevailing culture exists in a given locale, the people of God have their directions from His hand and we are to do our best, by His grace and help, to obey him, no matter the cost (and it could be very costly). If our influence has diminished in this American empire, maybe it will be of help to build back from the rubble that seems inevitable.
How will we build back? By continuing to refer to the essence of Jeremiah 29 again.
Dr. Tony Felich is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as the Pastor of Redeemer PCA in Overland Park, Kansas.
Related Posts: -
Thousands of Congregations Leave United Methodist Church Over Biblical Concerns
In recent years, bishops and ministers blessed homosexual relationships. UMC conferences approved lesbian- and gay-identified ministers and bishops, defying Scripture and official Methodist policy. Church leaders also showed support for abortion, denouncing the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Last week, 193 churches disaffiliated from the South Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church “over matters related to human sexuality,” announced Bishop David Graves, overseer of the Conference.
They are part of a growing exodus from the denomination, with more than 3,500 congregations leaving the second largest Protestant denomination in the United States in 2022 and 2023.
The separations come after years of contention in the UMC over foundational issues of Christian truth on the authority of Scripture, sanctity of life, and God’s design for marriage and sexuality.
Doctrinal disputes within Methodism date back to the turn of the last century, with some active ministers and bishops denying core church doctrines – and not being disciplined.
In recent years, bishops and ministers blessed homosexual relationships. UMC conferences approved lesbian- and gay-identified ministers and bishops, defying Scripture and official Methodist policy. Church leaders also showed support for abortion, denouncing the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
At its 2019 General Conference, the UMC added a rule to its Book of Discipline which “offers a limited way for congregations to leave the denomination and take full ownership of their buildings and other assets by releasing them from The United Methodist Church’s centuries-old trust clause,” Bishop Graves’ statement explained.
The disaffiliation process created multiple steps for churches who wanted to leave, including a time of prayer and discernment and a vote of approval by at least a two-thirds majority of a church’s professing members. The process also requires the exiting congregations to pay any money owed to the UMC along with all costs for transferring property titles.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Rise & Fall of the Presbycrats
The ratification of the overtures would have been helpful and a key victory, but largely symbolic. In this sense the National Partnership was right: Overtures 23 and 37 are unnecessary (but they are neither unclear nor unloving). Everything required by these overtures is already set forth by the Westminster Standards. The problem has been an unwillingness in some presbyteries and agencies of the PCA to uphold the Standards or to interpret them according to their historic meaning.
Despite voices warning the PCA was slipping down a progressive slope, for the most part confessional churches (now referred to by the chic as “Neo-Fundamentalists”) and progressive congregations (are they the “Neo-Liberals” according to the new chic nomenclature?) got along well enough until recently.
While they had concerns regarding some currents in the PCA, many small-and-medium-sized confessional churches were content to leave the work of General Assembly largely to others. As a result, the PCA lurched slowly, yet steadily in a broad, progressive direction until about 2019.1
The 2019 and 2021 Assemblies represented a clear rejection of the broad, progressive, wing of the General Assembly. And elders at the Assembly took heed to the warnings about the slippery progressive slope.Changing the PCA Trajectory
The recent unveiling of a series of emails from the once-secretive National Partnership (NP) reveals the alarm of the Progressives regarding the new trajectory of the General Assembly beginning in 2019. A member in the NP sent this email as voting was about to begin in Dallas:
“The Overtures will be voted on in the assembly NOW. If by chance you are picking up SWAG in the assembly hall, smack yourselves and join us!”
After the votes were taken that same NP coordinator summarized his goals for the 2019 Assembly as follows:
Dear friends,The 47th GA is in the books. If you remember I listed three of my personal goals for this assembly:1. Reject Nashville statement and approve SSA study committee2. Approve the Abuse study committee3. Approve Overture 8 regarding the service of unordained people on committees
While the Study Committee on Abuse was approved after receiving widespread support in the Assembly, the Assembly rejected an attempt by the NP and its allies to dilute the PCA doctrine of ordination by permitting unordained people on the committees of the General Assembly.
Even more tellingly, the Assembly resoundingly approved the Nashville Statement (NS) as a faithful summary of biblical doctrine regarding gender and human sexuality. These were two significant defeats for the progressive agenda in the PCA. For more assessment of the NP agenda, read the Session report from First Presbyterian Church.
After the approval of the NS, one of its vocal opponents took to Twitter to prophesy the ultimate victory of a progressive vision for the PCA and a defeat for those in favor of the definitions in the NS:
“Last night the NS won the battle, but they will lose the war. 1. We had a seat at the table. That’s new. 2. Notice the average age of the proponents and opponents. Big shift. 3. About 40% of the PCA leaders rejected NS. WE got a study committee whose report will supersede NS in the PCA.”
While the author of this Tweet spoke out against approval of the Study Committee Report in 2021, the Study Committee was passed overwhelmingly by that Assembly and it seemingly does not undermine or contradict the Nashville Statement, but only strengthens it.
The 2021 GA in Saint Louis was an even more decisive defeat for the NP and the broad/progressive wing of the PCA. The PCA almost unanimously approved its solidly biblical and remarkably concise Study Report on Human Sexuality. The 2021 Assembly also delivered several other items long sought by confessional and conservative elders in the PCA:The Assembly rejected a latitudinarian impulse on the Review of Presbytery Records Committee.
The Assembly prohibited Mission to the World from having unordained women and men in line authority supervising missionary pastors or ruling elders.
The Assembly overwhelmingly passed two overtures (23 and 37) that clearly bar anyone identifying as a Gay Christian or enslaved to other scandalous sins (e.g. racism, pornography, violence, etc.) from church office.
The Assembly largely rejected the (secret) NP slate of recommended candidates for the permanent committees, agencies, and Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA.2An organizer in the NP graciously and realistically noted the goals of the NP and their progressive colleagues were clearly not accomplished at the 2021 Assembly and they would need to take stock of their “place” in the PCA:
“The side representing our views was significantly outnumbered. We will have to take that to heart and consider what it means for the next years. There will be conversations in the weeks and months ahead about how we best steward our place in this denomination. But for now I just wanted to thank you all for working together, and for stepping into the gap when it was needed on committee reports, microphones, bottles of bourbon and cigars.”The Significance of the General Assembly
While many celebrated (or lamented) the passage of Overtures 23 and 37 (Item Three above), they are not the most significant result of the Saint Louis Assembly. Nor are they the only reason to be hopeful about a confessional renaissance in the PCA.
Item Four is the most significant because it is the permanent committees who oversee the daily operation of the PCA and recommend to the GA the hiring and firing of senior staff who set the agenda for the PCA. A few more Assemblies like Saint Louis (and to a large extent the 2019 Dallas Assembly as well) and the character of this denomination will reflect a clearer commitment to biblical fidelity and confessional integrity.
If conservative and confessional elders stay engaged and active at the General Assembly and presbytery level, we will be able to elect men to those committees and the SJC who will plot a course for the PCA within the Old Paths of the Reformed Faith, who will not prioritize “the culture’s view of the church over the church’s faithfulness to the unvarnished, countercultural, and often offensive proclamation of God’s truth,”3 and who will enable the courts of the PCA to uphold the Standards all her elders have subscribed.
That’s a big if; do confessional and conservative churches have the numbers to send elders to the General Assembly in 2022 to build on these successes from 2019 and 2021? I believe they do.
Read More1 One notable exception to this is the Greensboro General Assembly in which the confessional wing of the PCA succeeded in having Northwest Georgia Presbytery cited with an exception of substance for including a purported image of the Second Person of the Trinity in their worship order in violation of WLC109. The reason for the confessional success later was revealed by documents containing the NP Correspondence: the members of the NP didn’t know this was happening and were “taken by surprise on the floor of the Assembly” (p. 255). I guess many of them didn’t read their Commissioner Handbooks to know they should be on the floor for this. This was the debate in which the Assembly was told pictures of “Jesus” should be allowed because “we all have pictures of Aslan in our office.”
2 “ALL_NPP_Emails…” pp. 431ff. While some NP recommended candidates were elected by the Assembly, the compositions of these committees and the SJC took a decidedly conservative and confessional turn after the 2021 GA.
3 TE Jon Payne, https://www.facebook.com/jon.d.payne.7/posts/1878803962320114.
