Baptism as a covenant sign

[EmuBird]

Hello,

I’ve just recently become convinced of the paedobaptist position and am in the process of moving from my non-reformed church to a Presbyterian or Continental Reformed church. I do have one question, however, regarding how we can be sure that baptism is a covenant sign. I see in Colossians 2 that it is paralleled with circumcision, and I see in Acts 2 that the same language was clearly used by Peter to mirror the covenantal language of circumcision in Genesis 17.

That said, I am going to be having a discussion with my dispensational (MacArthur variety) parents about this soon, and I know they will not accept the CoG explanation (they believe it is a “man made” covenant). I know they believe that we are under the new covenant, but I’m not sure how I can clearly show them that baptism is the sign of the covenant for us today. Is there a good way that I could explain this to someone without delving into covenant theology? I understand why I am convinced, but explaining it to someone who doesn’t share the reformed hermeneutic may pose a challenge. Advice is greatly welcomed.

 

[paranymph]

It is not easy to do since dispensationalists and CT are using an entirely different hermeneutic. Here's my response from a Baptist perspective of one who holds to 1689 covenant theology, but I think this applies.

Where I start is with the Lord's Supper, which in Luke 22 is clearly labelled a sign of the new covenant. It is to be observed regularly for one who is in the new covenant ("staying in"). But the covenants also had rites of entrance ("getting in"). This is just a matter of understanding what a covenant is and what it meant in ANE times. So, even if they don't see Col 2 as saying baptism is a rite of entry, you can show that baptism is what Jesus first commands his disciples to do (Matt 28:18-20). It is clearly the first entrance into the visible people of God, as seen in Acts. The order is: Baptism, then Lord's Supper. So, if LS is clearly termed a sign of the new covenant, and baptism & LS are both sacraments/ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ, doesn't that mean baptism is the sign of entry into the New Covenant?

 

[J.L. Allen]

Welcome and Congrats!

Going through such a process was difficult. My parents didn't have any problem with it since they were attending a Lutheran church at the time (they are now in the ARP) and never were fully convinced of credo-only baptism. My in-laws, on the other hand, were a different story. If I did it all over again, I don't know that I would have bothered sitting down and having a conversation with them. It only caused years of strife.

I'll leave to another Presbyterian or Reformed to answer the question about the covenant sign. However, I will address the idea of having a conversation without presenting the necessary doctrines that are foundational to your arguments. Not only this, but they are based solely upon Scripture. It would be like a lawyer attempting to defend their client without appealing to any evidence or questioning any witnesses. So I would consider it. It may be better to give them reading material (the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity would be a great way to star; granted the latter doesn't really flesh out federal theology clearly, which is part of the issue at hand).

So I guess this is my question to you: is it absolutely necessary to engage your parents about the topic? Must they be involved? I'm NOT saying that you should disrespect your parents by being sneaky or anything of the sort. I say this because it could end up causing much pain, which your parents may take as disrespect.

 

[EmuBird]

Welcome and Congrats!

Going through such a process was difficult. My parents didn't have any problem with it since they were attending a Lutheran church at the time (they are now in the ARP) and never were fully convinced of credo-only baptism. My in-laws, on the other hand, were a different story. If I did it all over again, I don't know that I would have bothered sitting down and having a conversation with them. It only caused years of strife.

I'll leave to another Presbyterian or Reformed to answer the question about the covenant sign. However, I will address the idea of having a conversation without presenting the necessary doctrines that are foundational to your arguments. Not only this, but they are based solely upon Scripture. It would be like a lawyer attempting to defend their client without appealing to any evidence or questioning any witnesses. So I would consider it. It may be better to give them reading material (the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity would be a great way to star; granted the latter doesn't really flesh out federal theology clearly, which is part of the issue at hand).

So I guess this is my question to you: is it absolutely necessary to engage your parents about the topic? Must they be involved? I'm NOT saying that you should disrespect your parents by being sneaky or anything of the sort. I say this because it could end up causing much pain, which your parents may take as disrespect.

Unfortunately, even though I am married and live separately from them, they used to attend the church my wife and I are currently members of. The relationships there and the time we spent there in years prior will definitely make it something that should be brought up. I don’t want my convictions to appear to be something I’m ashamed of or need to hide, so I feel that a conversation is the best way to approach this. I don’t plan on changing their minds, but I would like to explain it in a way that does it justice and is also somewhat accessible to them in their current theological state.

 

[Phil D.]

Many (most?) Reformed credos still see baptism as a covenant sign (as for example, here - not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing this out). There is difference of course in how each understands the relationship between baptism and covenant.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Unfortunately, even though I am married and live separately from them, they used to attend the church my wife and I are currently members of. The relationships there and the time we spent there in years prior will definitely make it something that should be brought up. I don’t want my convictions to appear to be something I’m ashamed of or need to hide, so I feel that a conversation is the best way to approach this. I don’t plan on changing their minds, but I would like to explain it in a way that does it justice and is also somewhat accessible to them in their current theological state.

I see... That does complicate the matter. However, I still think leading with reading material would be helpful. By giving them a copy of the Westminster Standards with Scripture proofs (Confession and both Catechisms), you can say, "Here's what I believe. Let's have a conversation once you've read through it a bit." Granted, you should read through it and make sure it is indeed what you confess. I would also stress the catholicity of the Church. Y'all aren't jumping out of the ark of safety. Would they be able to read it and understand?

 

[EmuBird]

I see... That does complicate the matter. However, I still think leading with reading material would be helpful. By giving them a copy of the Westminster Standards with Scripture proofs (Confession and both Catechisms), you can say, "Here's what I believe. Let's have a conversation once you've read through it a bit." Granted, you should read through it and make sure it is indeed what you confess. I would also stress the catholicity of the Church. Y'all aren't jumping out of the ark of safety. Would they be able to read it and understand?

They may be willing to read it, though they currently hold a strictly Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper as well, which both the WCF and the 3FU contradict, holding to a position more aligned with that of Calvin, which I fear would open the door to even more disagreement and needless argumentation. Still, perhaps giving them some time to read and consider the Westminster standards may be beneficial.

It is not easy to do since dispensationalists and CT are using an entirely different hermeneutic. Here's my response from a Baptist perspective of one who holds to 1689 covenant theology, but I think this applies.

Where I start is with the Lord's Supper, which in Luke 22 is clearly labelled a sign of the new covenant. It is to be observed regularly for one who is in the new covenant ("staying in"). But the covenants also had rites of entrance ("getting in"). This is just a matter of understanding what a covenant is and what it meant in ANE times. So, even if they don't see Col 2 as saying baptism is a rite of entry, you can show that baptism is what Jesus first commands his disciples to do (Matt 28:18-20). It is clearly the first entrance into the visible people of God, as seen in Acts. The order is: Baptism, then Lord's Supper. So, if LS is clearly termed a sign of the new covenant, and baptism & LS are both sacraments/ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ, doesn't that mean baptism is the sign of entry into the New Covenant?

I find this to be a convincing train of logical thought. Thanks for this.

 

[J.L. Allen]

They may be willing to read it, though they currently hold a strictly Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper as well, which both the WCF and the 3FU contradict, holding to a position more aligned with that of Calvin, which I fear would open the door to even more disagreement and needless argumentation. Still, perhaps giving them some time to read and consider the Westminster standards may be beneficial.


I find this to be a convincing train of logical thought. Thanks for this.

You may end up with more "converts" out of them reading the Standards.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Hello,

I’ve just recently become convinced of the paedobaptist position and am in the process of moving from my non-reformed church to a Presbyterian or Continental Reformed church. I do have one question, however, regarding how we can be sure that baptism is a covenant sign. I see in Colossians 2 that it is paralleled with circumcision, and I see in Acts 2 that the same language was clearly used by Peter to mirror the covenantal language of circumcision in Genesis 17.

That said, I am going to be having a discussion with my dispensational (MacArthur variety) parents about this soon, and I know they will not accept the CoG explanation (they believe it is a “man made” covenant). I know they believe that we are under the new covenant, but I’m not sure how I can clearly show them that baptism is the sign of the covenant for us today. Is there a good way that I could explain this to someone without delving into covenant theology? I understand why I am convinced, but explaining it to someone who doesn’t share the reformed hermeneutic may pose a challenge. Advice is greatly welcomed.

When we see all the Old Testament covenants God made with man: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, all these included their children as well. Then we have the new covenant that we live under. We see that the Covenant of Grace is overarching all these covenants. So how is it that all the Old Testament covenants included children, but when we get to the New Covenant, the children are somehow tossed out? I think Romans 11 is a good starting place.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.[Romans 11:17-21]

Notice how it’s the Gentiles who get grafted into this olive tree that the Jews were once part of. This tree (or vine such as found in John 15 which Jesus gives the same analogy) goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, in that all believers from all time were part of this tree (or vine). And children were part of it. Now the Gentiles come in and all of a sudden the babies get kicked out? That’s like moving into someone’s house and either rearranging the furniture of tossing some of it out. There’s a lot of New Testament proof that baptism is for babies as was circumcision was for the male babies, as you already posted.


I posted this, not to start a debate on here, but food to chew on. My prayers are with you and your family.

 

[jwithnell]

Perhaps it would be helpful to go from the general to the specific across many conversations. Start with something along the lines of: "Hey, I'm really excited to learn how God has consistently worked with his people through all ages." As a parent, I'd be delighted that one of my kids was engaging with the scriptures.