Hello Stephen – and friends,
As I have been working my way through the Renihan brothers’ essay, it is troubling to see the tortuous—one could almost call it labyrinthine—argumentation of their presentation on the covenants and the resultant disallowance of baptism for believers’ infants. Why can’t plain teachings of the Bible be presented simply? It must be admitted, however, that part of the problem is the complexity of many Reformed
paedobaptists’ presentations of
their views.
As I get to page 11 of their essay I find I must take a break and ponder this whole endeavor. The Renihan brothers (RBs) seek to bolster their position from so many sources, and redefine so many terms (Old Testament, Old Covenant, New Testament, New Covenant, Covenant of Grace, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic or Sinaitic Covenant)—as does Pascal Denault in his,
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, that one would almost have to write a book, or at least a lengthy essay in reply. And each of hundreds of points could then be argued and wrangled about!
Years ago, while in a Presbyterian church, a Baptist friend of mine (who went to the same church) remarked that as parents presented their infant children for baptism, the ministers were vague or inadequate as regards their bringing the children into the covenant of God’s people, and what their status was as regards election, and I had to agree.
At that time I was also pondering the PRCA (Protestant Reformed Church in America) and their view on so-called common grace (see
this post in another thread), and while doing that became familiar with their views on infant baptism (at the time I was in charge of this Presbyterian church’s bookstore, so was constantly engaged in discussions of these sorts, procuring whatever books I wanted to, etc). I thought their position on infant baptism was both simple and coherent. This was around 20 years ago.
Recently I have again been drawn into the credo-paedo discussion as a Baptist pastor gave me the Pascal Denault book mentioned above. I’d steered clear of such for years being a member in a Baptist church. (Earlier paedo-baptism discussions I've been involved in on PB
here,
here, and
here.). So I’ve returned to examining the PRCA books I have (and I just ordered a bunch more). It is clear that mere proof texts for one side or the other do not really address the root of the baptism debate, but rather it is the issue of the covenant of God, what it is, and who are its members.
That is where the answer lies. The ping-pong discussions are futile, in respect to breaking the impasse.
This involves looking afresh at the covenant. I’m convinced that the PRC is sound in their view, but it means reexamining things we – the Reformed – have long held to be true. For instance, what is the nature of the pre-fall covenant in Eden? Was it a covenant of works? Or was it a covenant, as I now think, of grace and of divine friendship to the first of God’s creatures – Adam – made in His image? Adam failed of that covenant by disobedience to his Creator and going over to the side of His enemy, Satan.
Did the covenant of grace and friendship cease with Adam’s betrayal and death? No, it was picked up again immediately after the fall, in the Proto-evangelion, when the Last Adam—the
new Mediator of God’s covenant with humankind—was announced: One was coming to destroy the vast ruination of the devil, continue the covenant of grace and friendship, redeem that which was lost, and bring man to an infinitely more blessed position than the earthy first Adam could have done, all of which would be established in the line of continued generations of the seed of the woman in Eden.
I ordered the additional books I did so I could study and get very clear on this matter, and the precision of its language. If I am going to teach something I need to know it very well. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said (to the effect of), “If you can’t explain something simply, it is because you don’t understand it well enough.”
I attach a link to a pamphlet by David Engelsma, which broaches this topic:
The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers. Here’s a quote from it:
“It is the covenantal election of God that determines the viewpoint that believing parents and church take toward the children and that governs the approach in rearing them. We do not view them as unsaved heathens (‘little vipers’), though there may well be vipers among them, any more than we view the congregation as a gathering of unbelievers because of the presence of unbelievers among the saints. But we view them as children of God.
God realizes his covenant in the line of generations. He gathers his church from age to age from the children of believers. As the Puritans were fond of saying, ‘God casts the line of election in the loins of godly parents.’ For the sake of the elect children, all are baptized.” [Emphasis added]
Which simply reiterates what Paul said in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”
So all were circumcised after Abraham, although not all were the children of the promise, the elect. The same with baptism. I know the Baptists like to have a congregation of the regenerate, but the outward profession of faith is very often not genuine (though the professor may, at the moment, her or himself think it is), and so it was with the children of Abraham after the flesh, not all the circumcised were the elect.
@timfost, this is similar to what you said in your
post 28, “In short, Peter could call his readers elect based on
external indicators-- they show
evidence of election and he
regards them as such. If some were to fall away in that same number, Peter would
not have to rescind his statement.” As with a grape vine, even though some of the branches were not fruitful, and would be cut off and burned, one doesn’t say of the vine it is a mixed vine, but simply it is the vine.
For the sake of the elect children, all are baptized, it being understood that not all
of Israel
are Israel. This is the Biblical approach.