# Zaccheus' salvation....reasoning for infant baptism...



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

In reading Joseph Lathrop's book on infant baptism, he gives the example of Zaccheus' salvation as reason for infant baptism. Basically, the argument is that the reason that Christ gives for Zaccheus' household salvation is that he is a son of Abraham. 

"‘Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

Lathrop insists that the EVERLASTING covenant established with Abraham, and the sign of that covenant, being circumcision has continued past the time of Christ, and that Christ supported the idea that this covenant household salvation goes into and past the time where He has been revealed as the Son of God. The idea that the sign of salvation/being part of the visible church has actually been shrunk rather than expanded after Christ's coming to earth he deems as a poor idea.

He argues that there would have been significant uprising by those in the Jewish community who were used to their children being included and treated as part of the Covenant, only to now be excluded in the supposed new better and more expansive covenant of Grace.

Thoughts? I can take some pictures of the pages if you want to do some reading of the actual text. It was quite interesting and convicting.


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 1, 2013)

The way I'm reading what you are saying is that it's about whether you are a descendent of Abraham or not. Which I don't think is what you or Lathrop mean?


----------



## Kim G (Feb 1, 2013)

JoannaV said:


> The way I'm reading what you are saying is that it's about whether you are a descendent of Abraham or not.



I won't speak as to what he meant, but what you said is true. The Bible says that Jews who do not believe in Christ are NOT true descendents of Abraham. And Gentiles who trust in Christ ARE true descendents of Abraham. The Bible also says that the promises in Genesis were not to Abraham and his descendentS, but to Abraham and his Descendent, Christ. Those who are in Christ get all the promises and blessings of Abraham.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

Kim, excellent post. Thanks for the response. Lathop's argument is far more exhaustive than what I posted. I'll post his argument along with his summary of his position so that you call can see it and understand it better.

The idea is basically that to think that somehow the everlasting covenant established with Abraham and his descendants (which we read as "true" descendants") somehow got smaller, and after Christ comes He reverses our children's position to have the covenant sign is preposterous; especially as the little children were encouraged to come to Him by those who were coming to Jesus.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

Here are some additional points made following his points on Zaccheus...


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

These are his closing arguments for the chapter.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

the book can be ordered here for $17

Discourses On The Mode And Subjects Of Christian Baptism: Or An Attempt To Show What Pouring Or Sprinkling Is A Scriptural Mode (1811): Joseph Lathrop: 9781166959906: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 1, 2013)

Or, you can read scans of the whole book here:

Sermons, on the mode and subject of Christian baptism, ... . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 1, 2013)

Thanks for the elaboration, I read the facsimiles. (I said descendent instead of child to emphasise the physical way it came across, I forgot that could be taken in the same way haha. It just sounded to me like you were saying Lathrop was talking about the physical genetic descendants of Abraham, which I didn't think could be what was meant and indeed it isn't.)

All I get from "This day is salvation come to this house" is that Zaccheus was saved. I don't infer anything about his household at all. I see it more as referring to his actual building, even? Salvation came to the world 

I suppose I do not like to assume from some of these accounts that there were babes present when it does not say that, nor do I like to assume that any children that may have been present did not believe, or that "believing in God with all his house" might only mean that he believed and the others...acquiesced or something. 

Every Jewish Christian writing I have come across so far supports believer immersion, based both on the Bible and on what they know of old Jewish thought. Does Lathrop provide any citations when he talks about the Jewish response? I'd be interested in reading a Jewish Christian paedobaptist apologetic.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 2, 2013)

Constantlyreforming said:


> …He argues that there would have been significant uprising by those in the Jewish community who were used to their children being included and treated as part of the Covenant, only to now be excluded in the supposed new better and more expansive covenant of Grace…



MY THOUGHTS:
The same argument could be made for Acts 2:38-39. It is kind of like the issue of the Sabbath. If Peter would have told the Jews to observe the Christian Sabbath, they might have assumed Saturday was what he meant without a proper explanation concerning Sunday. Likewise, the Jews would interpret the promise to children in light of the Abrahamic Covenant without a proper explanation. But the contention is that "your children" only means "children who have repented." Didn't circumcision happen on either side of repentance under the old economy? And yet repentance was commanded anyway? Then why should we now demand repentance before baptism just because the words "repent" and "baptize" follow a certain order. Is this hoe the Jews interpreted Peter? Did the Jews say to Peter later, "We know what meant back there, Peter, about the promise being to our children because you said the word 'repent' before you said the word 'baptize.' You're a sneaky, sneaky preacher."? 

As an additional note, I have something more to say while it is on my mind. If the effectiveness of Christ's atonement on the cross is not hindered by the place in time it occurred (partly what the baptismal promise signifies on our behalf) why should it matter so much that baptism be insisted on only after repentance? Does baptism only mean something if you measure up repentance-wise? Sounds like faith in one's sincerity rather than faith in God's baptismal promise. I hope it doesn't make anyone mad, but this has the appearance flavor of one leg being in Arminianism—decision-ism.

Now don't go getting all inflamed; some of you. And don't start an argument over what I said. I already know some of will disagree with me.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 4, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> > …He argues that there would have been significant uprising by those in the Jewish community who were used to their children being included and treated as part of the Covenant, only to now be excluded in the supposed new better and more expansive covenant of Grace…
> ...



Jon, Im not sure Im following your argument...are you saying that if one is baptized after repentance, that it only means something IF the repentance is real, and thus, is based on one's sincerity?


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 4, 2013)

Constantlyreforming said:


> Jon, Im not sure Im following your argument...are you saying that if one is baptized after repentance, that it only means something IF the repentance is real, and thus, is based on one's sincerity?



No. I am speaking against this. This is what I have been taught by some baptists. I am not making an argument for the baptist position. I am making an argument for covenantal baptism; whether infant or adult or child. The 1689 LBC Reformed Baptist church where I _was_ attending teaches that a person should be re-baptized if they find their prior conversion experience was false. The reason would seem to be that this sort of baptism points to the condition of the recipient rather than to God's promise. However, I find it more helpful an God glorifying to let the sign be a sign of the covenant rather than a sign of the recipient. Well, which is it? A sign of the covenant or a sign o the condition of the recipient?

The _baptism of sincerity_ I am speaking against is the kind of baptism that signifies one's righteous standing in Christ. It has been spoken of in other ways such as "an outward sign of an inward condition." I believe this is very harmful to Christians and their faith and robs God of glory because this sort of baptism has twisted the sign to point to the righteousness of the one baptized rather than to God's covenant promise. This is harmful because the sign interpreted in this way teaches the believer to look at themselves and their sincerity rather than to God's covenantal promise (Arminianistic decision-ism). Ask many believers what their baptism meant to them and many will say, "It is a sign of my dedicating my life to God." I know this is controversial, but it makes me really wonder how a baptist improves their baptism if the sign of baptism points to their inward condition rather than to God's promise. Seen on this light, perhaps this sort of baptism only improves one's sincerity. When I am in a spiritual dark pit and ready to despair because of my own perplexing sin, I find it more helpful to consider God's promise than to consider my own sincerity of faith.

I am probably leading the thread astray by this point. I have much to say on this subject lately.


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 4, 2013)

I've heard it taught that "your children" = Jews and then "those afar off" = Gentiles.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 5, 2013)

JoannaV said:


> I've heard it taught that "your children" = Jews and then "those afar off" = Gentiles.



I agree.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 5, 2013)

I appreciate Lanthrop's argument of family solidarity. It is one of the arguments that helped me to see how God works in families and convinced me of the necessity of baptizing our own son. However, one of the ideas that stood in the way of my fully accepting the idea of the family/covenantal solidarity being carried over from the old economy, which existed before Christ, was the idea that all who are members of the New Covenant _must be saved_ because they must all know the Lord according to Jeremiah 31. Then I was blown away by Hebrews 10:29-30,

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

I was instructed to take notice of verse 30 where it says that the Lord will judge _His_ people. This passage is talking about the covenant people of God (His people) who are covenant breakers who have been broken off and are considered worthy of greater punishment. This idea of God judging his own covenant people does not fit into a baptist interpretation of the covenant (_all_ must be saved?). However, it fits very nicely in covenantal baptist interpretation. As this idea once troubled me, so it should hopefully trouble others.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Feb 5, 2013)

Very good and interesting thoughts, Jon. I appreciate your words on the subject. I also like your signature...


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 6, 2013)

Constantlyreforming said:


> Very good and interesting thoughts, Jon. I appreciate your words on the subject.  I also like your signature...



I appreciate you sharing Lanthrop's words with us; though I am still puzzled about something. If the flood and the parting of the Red Sea are pictures of NT baptism, how do those who were judged fit into this covenantal paradigm? Consider Pharaoh and his army. Consider the drowning world. It could be said that they were baptized unto judgment. I have concluded such. But they had no legal interest in the covenant of grace. So, what puzzles me is how they were judged and marked by the sign while having no legal interest in the covenant.

This carries over to another thing that puzzles me; the similarities of Noah and Adam. They are both fathers to all of mankind coming after them. If Adam represents all mankind in the covenant of works _because he is the father of all mankind,_ why is Noah not the representative of all mankind after him in the covenant of grace _by being the father of all now alive?_ Does it have to do with being according to God's promise as it did regarding Isaac? (cf. Romans 9:6-13)

We were _all_ in Adam when God made the covenant of works with him and, when Adam fell, we fell in him. What about the covenant of grace made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15. We were _all_ in Adam's loins when God made the covenant with Adam. We were in Noah's loins when he entered the ark.

As usual, I am seeing something intuitively. I just can't properly put it together yet.

Is there a "promised judgment" and a "promised blessing" aspect of the covenant of grace into which _all_ mankind fits while only those who have "come near" and are no longer "afar off" become marked out with God's promise and have a greater culpability and a legal interest (for some) and a saving interest (for some)? Doesn't the promise of salvation go out to all nations? But only those who come near are given greater revelation of God's covenant are said to have a legal interest in it. Those who disobey the gospel are then judged whether they have a legal interest in it or not.

I am not suggesting that all people everywhere have a legal interest in the covenant of grace; only those who have come near by profession or family. Maybe someone can help me sort out these theologically messy thoughts. What am I seeing? How does it all fit together?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 6, 2013)

The waters of baptism are _judgmental_ waters. That is one of the symbols of baptism. We die in baptism, and yet we also come to life in it, in Christ by faith, who has risen from the dead. Lk.12:50 "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"

The water of the flood (1st baptism in the Bible, according to Peter) and the water of the Red Sea/Exodus (2nd baptism, according to Paul) were dividing waters. They separated the living from the dying. How do Noah and the seven others with him survive the deluge? They are inside the Ark. The ark takes the beating and the drowning of the whole world by judgment, but those who are protected inside it are spared the devastating effects.

How are the Israelites saved through the Red Sea waters? By being united to their mediator, Moses. He takes them through the water, delivering them safely through to the other side. Whereas those enemies, those who belong to the Dead Land, who would drag the escapees back into bondage and blackness--they are overwhelmed by the waters. They have no mediator, hence no salvation.


Baptism is serious business. I can't speak for the Baptist here; they don't see the ungodly who are served by the church in this way (of any age) as being baptized. Only the redeemed are properly baptized, and it is supposed to follow a genuine profession (so might have to be repeated in order to get it in the right order). So, I don't know what sort of condemnation they might associate with the waters of baptism.

But for the Reformed, the sacramental act of baptism visited upon the recipient is as much a promise of justice upon the unrepentant man as is his unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper. No, he's baptized all right, regardless; just as much as he might later be served the Lord's Supper, regardless; and it isn't something that is "nullified" by the state of the recipient's heart at the time. See Heb.6:4 as intimating the peril of those who despise what was (outwardly) imparted to them, by Word or deed.


----------

