Covenantal Status and Baptism

[msortwell]

In light of Gen 17:14,

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.‭​

Are we to understand the covenantal status of the baptized offspring of believing parents to be different from that of the unbaptized offspring of believing parents?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Great question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Could you give a concrete example of what you're writing about? I'm not quite following.

Would this case fit your inquiry: a family of six--2 parents, believers & 4 children, ages between 0 and 6yrs--and (in this hypothetical) the 0 and the 6 are baptized, and the middle children are not?

Tell me if this fits, or change the scenario, so I can process the question. Thanks.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yes, they are, in a sense. Consider what it means to be 'cut-off'. A good example would be a family that at one time was church going. The parents are confessing Presbyterians. They hold fast to paedo baptism. In time, they have children and stop going to church for whatever reasons. They fail to place the commanded sign on their seed. They are guilty of self-excommunication. They themselves cut-off themselves from the means of grace.

Another example could be a family that has had a change of thought on Gen 17; they begin subscribing to a credo type of belief. They leave a paedobaptising society of believers and now attend a credo setting; They themselves are baptised, their children are not. In 1 Cor 7:14, we can see that God tells us that our children are holy (make the distinction between (H)oliness and (h)oliness). This must be seen along the lines of certain distinctions; for example, the covenant has internal and external distinctions. Some of these children may be regenerated and not yet converted; others, fully converted. Others, fully unregenerated and reprobate. The unregenerated and reprobate children are in the external side of the covenant (yet, still in covenant), the regenerated are in the internal side of the covenant. Still all of these groups have this 'holiness', described in 1 Cor 7:14. The change of heart towards a credo theology, takes an obvious turn for this family; the credo does not see any of this covenantal holiness for their children. The children are self-excommunicated by their federal heads. They sit under the means of grace in some essence, but it is not the biblical essence of being a non-communicant member of said covenant and the local church.

Being *in-covenant* is better than not being in-covenant in one way. The unregenerated child still sits under the means of grace; they hear the gospel continually. They share in the beautiful fellowship of the saints, etc. The sign marks out the child for kingdom business. On one hand it is a sign of condemnation and on the other, those benefits I previously mention. To neglect the sign, is to remove any positive blessing that would come, even to the reprobate child. It is better, even for the reprobate to be in church, than not.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

 

[Dachaser]

In light of Gen 17:14,

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.‭​

Are we to understand the covenantal status of the baptized offspring of believing parents to be different from that of the unbaptized offspring of believing parents?

Wouldn't it be based upon if God has elected them unto life in Christ, though, and not the ordinance itself?

 

[littlepeople]

In light of Gen 17:14,

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.‭​

Are we to understand the covenantal status of the baptized offspring of believing parents to be different from that of the unbaptized offspring of believing parents?

Sure outwardly. "John these promises are for you; You've been washed and made new - You're a disciple. Sam these promises are not for you; You're outside of this arrangement entirely and have no part or interest in it. You're not a disciple."

 

[littlepeople]

emphasis on "outwardly". In as much as baptism is an outward sign and speaks of belonging, witholding that same sign surely speaks of not belonging.

 

[msortwell]

Sure outwardly. "John these promises are for you; You've been washed and made new - You're a disciple. Sam these promises are not for you; You're outside of this arrangement entirely and have no part or interest in it. You're not a disciple."

Regarding the emphasis on "outwardly" . . . It this declaration on God's part equally outward only?

I am not trying to be difficult. It only seems that we who build much of our doctrine of baptism on its close relationship to circumcision should give careful consideration regarding the implications of God declaring the failure to apply the sign of a covenant to the breaking of the covenant. Is there a direct parallel between the two signs and the failure to apply them as commanded?

 

[msortwell]

Could you give a concrete example of what you're writing about? I'm not quite following.

Would this case fit your inquiry: a family of six--2 parents, believers & 4 children, ages between 0 and 6yrs--and (in this hypothetical) the 0 and the 6 are baptized, and the middle children are not?

Tell me if this fits, or change the scenario, so I can process the question. Thanks.

Your scenario wold work. Mine is, I think, more simple. My thoughts were along the following lines . . .

I belong to an OPC church. We allow, as members, both pedobaptists and credobaptists. Assuming each family (one pedo-parented and one credo-parented) has infant children, are the infant children of the two families (one group baptized the other not) are those children in the same covenantal position/status?

Does the witholding of baptism from children render them covenant breakers?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My thoughts were along the following lines . . .

I belong to an OPC church. We allow, as members, both pedobaptists and credobaptists. Assuming each family (one pedo-parented and one credo-parented) has infant children, are the infant children of the two families (one group baptized the other not) are those children in the same covenantal position/status?

I would say: in the New Covenant age, we will emphasize to a greater degree than in previous administrations that anyone's "covenant status"--whether an adult's or a child's--is regarded by God according to the substance, in preference to the earthly administration.

Under the earlier administrations (which had a heavier typological element than the latest) we see God act directly for example in the case of Moses, Ex.4:24ff, according to the outward administration. He did so to underscore the principle that external conformity to his covenant adminstration is not by any means trivial, though it is not substantive.

Such statements are especially important in initial settings. God, as reflected by other authorities generally, does not fail to "set the tone" early. We see a similar sort of reaction in Act.5, in the early NC case of Ananias & Sapphira. In Moses' case, he was guilty of a serious covenant-administration breach, which left uncorrected would have diminished his effectiveness as the supreme mediator of the Old Covenant.

Formally speaking, Moses' child was regarded for his uncircumcision as a "covenant-breaker," per Gen.17:14; however, I believe the person whose life was threatened in the story was Moses (not Gershom). Moses was the most guilty person in that situation, guilty of covenant-breach.

What about covenant-children today? Well, in the situation at your church, there look to be some sincere differences of views represented in the membership. I can tell you that administratively, (from an earthly vantage point) the presence of unbaptized minor-youth belonging to believing, member households (Baptist-orientation) is a complicating factor. Formally speaking, yes there is a difference in status; because the baptized children of those of the Presbyterian-orientation are ON THE ROLLS of the church. The unbaptized youth are not.

What are the latter? I can assure you, I do not doubt but your elders are shepherding them as if they were members. They are getting treatment that is designed for members, even though they have not been brought into the membership, via baptism. This is an "overflow of grace" to them. They are receiving the benefits of members, without being such, and that on account of their parent's faith, and in spite of withholding baptism from them.

Possibly, their own parents regard their little ones as "covenant-breakers" of a sort, at least that of the Covenant of Works. The elders, with a slightly different view of them as standing within the sphere of the Covenant of Grace, aim at providing as much of the like care they give to children who are on the rolls of the church. Administratively, the situation is just complicated, no way around that.

In the Old Covenant era, the governors of the church did not exercise the same level of spiritual interest toward the children of non-Israelites. But, there are examples of an overflow of the mercy of God to them under unusual circumstances: think of 1Ki.17, Elijah's ministry to the widow of Zarephath's son. Like Timothy, he probably was not circumcised as a youth. Certainly, Elijah is not said to have done any such rite for him. But the mother was (or became) a believer.

If "covenant-status" is conferred by membership, then 1) an elect child is substantively regarded by God according to his objective relation to Christ; and 2) a child in the world is administratively regarded by the church according to his objective standing as a member of the church. God cares infinitely more about the former than the latter. But, the latter is not unimportant to God.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I would say no to the question as you asked it. Baptism doesn't do anything to our children, per se. Baptizing them doesn't make them part of the covenant. We are commanded to baptize them because they already ARE part of the covenant; in the same way that Abraham was part of the covenant already before he received the sign. (NOTE: It happens in reverse for adults and infants; again: for adults the pattern is the REALITY first--faith--and THEN the RITE--circumcision/baptism; whereas for infants the pattern is reversed: God commands the RITE to be applied to them first with the hope and expectation that the covenant REALITY--faith--will take place in God's time and His way). Having clarified that, we baptize because our infants are already in the covenant and so we mark them with the sign of the covenant; marking them with the sign of the covenant isn't what makes them part of it; it's the other way around.

I believe the heart of the text you referenced has to do more with negligence in this area; it's not that my first son is 4 years old and has been baptized but my second son is 3 months old and we haven't been able to baptize him yet. It seems to be more of wilful negligence on the part of the parent. The covenant does not continue indefinitely. Esau was a covenant child, but Genesis 36 describes him walking away from the faith and from the church, and when he does so, he takes his family along with him. His grandchildren were no longer considered part of the covenant, so that if any of them in time to come, come to faith in the Lord, they begin their covenant line in a fresh way as it were.

It's a fascinating passage, and I confess I feel there are still depths that I haven't been able to probe completely from this text, but this is my current understanding.

 

[littlepeople]

They are getting treatment that is designed for members, even though they have not been brought into the membership, via baptism. This is an "overflow of grace" to them.

That's so helpful.

 

[msortwell]

Wouldn't it be based upon if God has elected them unto life in Christ, though, and not the ordinance itself?

I am not sure I am ready to open my inquiry up to include the variables of elect/reprobate and regenerate/unregenerate, unless it is necessary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Moderating: Trimming the content not germane to the OP.

 

[msortwell]

So . . . it seems broadly accepted that, while the uncircumcised man child - son of Abraham was declared to be, in some real sense, a covenant breaker, we ought not to move that into the present administration and thereby consider the unbaptized children of true believers (that is, descendants of the Children of the Promise to Abraham, in Christ) to be covenant beakers, in any sense.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So . . . it seems broadly accepted that, while the uncircumcised man child - son of Abraham was declared to be, in some real sense, a covenant breaker, we ought not to move that into the present administration and thereby consider the unbaptized children of true believers (that is, descendants of the Children of the Promise to Abraham, in Christ) to be covenant beakers, in any sense.

Baptism leaves no visible mark, a stigma, neither scar or brand. There is no way of "revealing" the mark, or lack thereof. Hence, one could not by use of the mark identify a "false" covenanter to human eyes (perhaps indirectly by church-record).

People, even those who agree with my views in broad strokes, may disagree with my take (above). But consistent with you're conclusion, I say there should be a degree of flexibility how we "map" the current state-of-affairs (in the NT) to expressions that were made-to-order for OT affairs. Let another offer an argument contrary to it, and I'll listen.

We (of the WCF) confess that it is a "great sin" to contemn or neglect the baptismal ordinance, which includes the baptism of our infants. Ex.4:24-26 is used as the prooftext for this position, which I think is fine. But (until I see a NT argument) I do not think we correctly identify the unbaptized child as a "covenant-breaker," borrowing the Gen.17:14 terminology. I think that was language fit for the OT, intended to emphasize the religious solidarity that was to spiritually unite the chosen people. To repudiate circumcision was a repudiation of the faith and of the family's/nation's messianic purpose; the father was inculpating his child in his own defection (though his own mark he could not erase).

 

[msortwell]

Possibly, their own parents regard their little ones as "covenant-breakers" of a sort, at least that of the Covenant of Works. The elders, with a slightly different view of them as standing within the sphere of the Covenant of Grace, aim at providing as much of the like care they give to children who are on the rolls of the church. Administratively, the situation is just complicated, no way around that.

THIS is what I have been pondering. To baptize our children formally declares their association with the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant, as the seed of believers. To withhold the sacrament merely leaves the child associated with the Covenant of Works, as a child of the first Adam. Of course the child IS TRULY a child of believers . . .

 

[Contra_Mundum]

THIS is what I have been pondering. To baptize our children formally declares their association with the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant, as the seed of believers. To withhold the sacrament merely leaves the child associated with the Covenant of Works, as a child of the first Adam. Of course the child IS TRULY a child of believers . . .

We understand that the church, as authorized and directed, is making a claim on the child--an administrative claim which should (ceteris paribus) issue in a personal claim by the elder child on the substance of the covenant. Apostatizing is a "covenant breaking" (because the sign of something is not meaningless) to personally repudiate that sign; but you were asking what others thought about the unbaptized.

And I think that the nature of the sign (which has changed, OT to NT) has some bearing on whether the language to which you pointed, Gen.17:14, is fitting in precisely the same way under NT auspices. As I indicated just above, there is no residue of the baptismal rite, which bespeaks the invisible charter of the New Covenant. This makes those who have the sign utterly indistinguishable from those who do not, looked at with physical eyes. So, I think we appropriate the language of Gen17:14 only with care.

 

[msortwell]

We understand that the church, as authorized and directed, is making a claim on the child--an administrative claim which should (ceteris paribus) issue in a personal claim by the elder child on the substance of the covenant. Apostatizing is a "covenant breaking" (because the sign of something is not meaningless) to personally repudiate that sign; but you were asking what others thought about the unbaptized.

And I think that the nature of the sign (which has changed, OT to NT) has some bearing on whether the language to which you pointed, Gen.17:14, is fitting in precisely the same way under NT auspices. As I indicated just above, there is no residue of the baptismal rite, which bespeaks the invisible charter of the New Covenant. This makes those who have the sign utterly indistinguishable from those who do not, looked at with physical eyes. So, I think we appropriate the language of Gen17:14 only with care.

It certainly seems true that the Abrahamic Covenant is more tightly linked to its sign than the New Covenant is to baptism - God even referring to the sign as the covenant itself.

(NKJV) Gen 17:13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

It certainly seems true that the Abrahamic Covenant is more tightly linked to its sign than the New Covenant is to baptism

Hows that? Care to elaborate?

 

[msortwell]

Hows that? Care to elaborate?

It seems that God's willingness to essentially equate (at least in figure - metonymy?) the Abrahamic Covenant with the Covenant's sign as He does in the verse I quoted (Gen 17:13) intimates a relationship closer than that expressed about the relationship between the New Covenant and baptism.

 

[Scott Bushey]

intimates a relationship closer than that expressed about the relationship between the New Covenant and baptism.

How have you come to that conclusion?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It certainly seems true that the Abrahamic Covenant is more tightly linked to its sign than the New Covenant is to baptism - God even referring to the sign as the covenant itself.

(NKJV) Gen 17:13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

We can think about other metonymy wrt the NC:
--"This cup is the NC..." Lk.22:20
--Baptism as the equivalent of union w/ Christ, Gal.3:27; or indwelling Spirit, 1Cor.12:13; both promises of particular potency under the NC.

What the latter shows is that above or beyond the sign being metonymy for "covenant," as the general term for the relationship, the sign is metonymy for covenant-telos--that for which covenant exists.

I think its all going the same direction...

 

[msortwell]

We understand that the church, as authorized and directed, is making a claim on the child--an administrative claim which should (ceteris paribus) issue in a personal claim by the elder child on the substance of the covenant. Apostatizing is a "covenant breaking" (because the sign of something is not meaningless) to personally repudiate that sign; but you were asking what others thought about the unbaptized.

And I think that the nature of the sign (which has changed, OT to NT) has some bearing on whether the language to which you pointed, Gen.17:14, is fitting in precisely the same way under NT auspices. As I indicated just above, there is no residue of the baptismal rite, which bespeaks the invisible charter of the New Covenant. This makes those who have the sign utterly indistinguishable from those who do not, looked at with physical eyes. So, I think we appropriate the language of Gen17:14 only with care.

Certainly, the handling of sign and that signified is "moving in the same direction." And I see why we can say that the treatment of the Cup of the Lord's table and its relationship to the NC in Christ's blood is "precisely the same" as the Gen 17 treatment of the AC and circumcision. Still, there is an observable difference when we consider the relationship inferred to between the work of the Spirit when He acts to place us "in Christ." The former makes a statement of identity (albeit in a figurative use), the latter makes use of a similarity.