Scholten
Puritan Board Freshman
Given the emphasis on the Puritan Board for the healthy, constructive discussion of baptism, we have high hopes for generating some good comments. We are in need of good Baptist responses to a number of pro-infant baptism statements. These responses are needed in an on-going dialogue on the topic of baptism. This material focuses on the chapter Dr. Wellum wrote in the book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Please join us!This post marks the first of those advocating the practice of infant baptism. It is based on the covenant theology of Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and the Presbyterian and Reformed understandings. The first several paragraphs are an introduction to the section that is to be examined here.
The purpose of this section is to counter the Baptist argument as contained in the book Believer's Baptism. In order to counter it, it would be helpful to state their position in summary.
Their position reflects the fact that according to covenantal theology the practice of infant baptism is based on the Abrahamic covenant. With this in mind, their position is essentially this:
1.) The new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.
2.) Baptism is the sign of the new covenant (not the Abrahamic covenant).
3.) The new covenant is for all practical purposes to be identified with the church.
One can see from these three points how infant baptism is negated in their eyes. To begin with, the foundation of infant baptism, namely the Abrahamic covenant, has been replaced by the new covenant. All the members of the new covenant will know the Lord, will be believers according to Jeremiah 31:34. Since the new covenant is synonymous with the church in their opinion and only believers are members of the new covenant, then only believers are to be members of the church. The final nail in the coffin of infant baptism in their opinion comes from the second point. Again, since only believers are members of the new covenant and baptism is the sign of the new covenant it is a logical conclusion to draw that only believers are to receive baptism.
PAEDO-BAPTIST STATEMENT
2.1.1.1 At Its Inception The Mosaic Covenant Did Not Annul the Abrahamic Covenant.
In Galatians 3 we read:
16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring . . . 17This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. (ESV)
These verses state explicitly that the Mosaic covenant, which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant, did not annul that previous covenant.
Therefore, subsequent biblical covenants do not necessarily annul previous covenants.
BAPTIST RESPONSE
Unfortunately, at this time a written Baptist statement is not available. You can still provide feedback concerning whether or not you believe the above to be true to God's Word.
By going to the survey link given below opportunity will also be given to provide reference material that can be used in a response or a statement written out for use as a response. Input is greatly desired!
* * * * *
To register your evaluation of whether you believe the above Statement is true or false, go to the following link:
and take the survey posted there. Thank you!
Herb Kraker
