General Pattern of Baptism in the NT

Status
Not open for further replies.
This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:

"How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." (Rom. 4:10-12)

In the OT, believing preceded the sign of the covenant. Abraham is still the father of believers. There is no difference between the OT and NT in this regard.

Should OT infants have received the sign of the covenant? They did. Was this household principle abrogated or further established in the NT? Who was baptized? Households!

Hope this helps...

I would say that is one of of the things that helped me was the continuity between the covenants in relationship to profession of faith and then the giving of the covenant sign. I’m still working on how to properly understand/explain the relationship of the children to the parents who have received the sign. It is definitely something that is drawn from “good and necessary inferences” as the WCF says. The lack of properly understanding the close relationship the covenants have seems to be related to a poor understanding of the OT.
 
But then he also shows us it was valid to give the sign before faith was actually evidenced (to his children)

This is something that we can only show by good and necessary inference though correct? In other words, a covenantal understanding of Scripture will lead us to understand certain passages in the NT through that lens.?
 
I would say that is one of of the things that helped me was the continuity between the covenants in relationship to profession of faith and then the giving of the covenant sign. I’m still working on how to properly understand/explain the relationship of the children to the parents who have received the sign. It is definitely something that is drawn from “good and necessary inferences” as the WCF says. The lack of properly understanding the close relationship the covenants have seems to be related to a poor understanding of the OT.

It's interesting that when Paul exhorts Timothy to "preach the word," (2 Tim. 4:2) he primarily was referring to the OT since the NT was largely not written or fully circulated at that time. The covenant relationship in the OT was constantly before NT believers.
 
Brother, I must remember to say a prayer for you. My wife and I changed positions at the same time studying the Scriptures together. There was one pount where we had disagreement, and it required great care and tenderness. Theological switches are never easy because our whole lives are structured around our positions. May God give you both light and wisdom.

@Grant Jones and @timfost have given us a very clear example of an OT convert who believed and repented before being circumcised, and that is great precedence of what was required of any Gentile convert before either he or his family could become members of the OT church--they must believe and repent. So the requirements for admission in the NT have an ancient precedent.

My time is limited, but continuing that vein: Can we really say it not required of Gentile converts--outsiders coming into Israel--in the OT to repent and believe, or have some believable profession? I can't possibly imagine the answer is no when God had such a demand of holiness from the covenant people, both internal and external demands. Were I an elder in Israel I dont think I'd ever appoint circumcision to one who clung to his idols, continued in adultery, or was not willing to be justified before God in the way that Abraham was. It'd go against the whole point of being a holy and separate people. As God had said in other circumstances, "I will be sanctified by those who draw near to me" Leviticus 10. And clearly, as OT history shows, this demand was enforced.

Thanks Brother! It is not easy to walk through this theological change. However, I’m learning how merciful and gracious our great God is and how sinful I am. He is teaching me how to be patient and how to better love my wife.

The journey is difficult since my family and I moved to KY last July for me to attend Southern here. The elders of our church in AZ believed God was gifting me to be an elder so encouraged me to come here to be trained. I was questioning some things theologically before and during our move here. Now that we’ve been here for awhile, I’ve really started to lean toward the paedo position but am frustrated because I know my theological shift also means a postponement of being ordained to serve in a church. Learning God know what I need!
 
Thanks Brother! It is not easy to walk through this theological change. However, I’m learning how merciful and gracious our great God is and how sinful I am. He is teaching me how to be patient and how to better love my wife.

The journey is difficult since my family and I moved to KY last July for me to attend Southern here. The elders of our church in AZ believed God was gifting me to be an elder so encouraged me to come here to be trained. I was questioning some things theologically before and during our move here. Now that we’ve been here for awhile, I’ve really started to lean toward the paedo position but am frustrated because I know my theological shift also means a postponement of being ordained to serve in a church. Learning God know what I need!

Good lessons :) Ephesians 5 is our model for loving our wives, and I think it's called the washing of water not only for the purifying effect, but for the gentleness of the washing itself. May God grace you.

I can understand the frustration. I would say though, it's ultimately a mercy. The one thing you do not want is to go into eldership in a church/denomination where you cannot confidently subscribe to its confession. It would be insincere at best no matter how you tried to make it work. However, God is a God of great providences. If He has put a gift in you, He's not going to remove it just because you need a clearer understanding of the Word, and this may be part of placing you in the exact place where he would have you serve, first as a church member, and if He wills, as an elder. So, your desire to know the truth on baptism is a cooperation with His Spirit, and not a resistance. That's a comfort. If Christ is the one giving gifts in Ephesians 4, then Christ is the one putting them in their proper congregations.

But I would say, study and study the Scriptures themselves on this matter until you are fully convinced fully from Scripture one way or the other. The Lord bless you in it. Having been on both sides of the baptism debate I can say, if God made me an elder, I'd be happier to do it as a paedo than a credo. I am as a parent for sure.

@Bill Duncan has advice in his post well worth heeding. Studying and searching these things out together is one thing, though it has to be done in light of both of you having membership vows to uphold. When we switched views we were advised by paedo friends not to propogate our views because we were still under membership at an RB church though we then lived in another state. I think joint study is permitted, and no elder should ever hinder honest inquiry into Bible teaching, nor would they desire to, but when it begins to look like propogation of a contrary view then conflicts arise.

The education complicates it. If your sending church is paying for your education, it seems some discussions with your elders back home may be in order, depending on just how far into the PB position you lean. However, I don't have any experience in such things.
 
This is something that we can only show by good and necessary inference though correct? In other words, a covenantal understanding of Scripture will lead us to understand certain passages in the NT through that lens.?
I think I know what you are asking, if my answer misses your question tell me.

My answer:
Yes, but Not solely in my opinion. Think about how in the new testiment the children of believing parent(s) are called holy. And the NT maintains Household language (which clearly includes more than just babies).

However you are not entirely wrong either, because a covenatal understanding of scripture is simply the only way to to read scripture, even if not “reformed”, I find it extremely poor exegesis (I was guilty of this) not to always be conscious of God’s covenants as one makes their way through the Bible. Simply put, according to the Bible, does God ever relate to us outside of a covenant? I do not think so. Using scripture to interpret scripture is another way of saying what you said: “viewing through a Covenant Theology Lens.”

Romans teaches us that we are either represented by fallen Adam or Christ. No person on earth lacks a covenant relationship to God, we either stand condemned or reconciled to God as it relates to our covenantal standing.:detective:
 
Last edited:
For the OP, one shouldn’t shy away from the idea that the norm in the NT (and maybe for the first century) was adult baptism. Infant baptism doesn’t rest upon the pattern of the 1st century church. The reformed have acknowledged these points from the beginning. See James Bannerman and William Cunningham on these points:

https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/

https://renopres.com/2017/03/26/william-cunningham-infant-baptism/
I'm not in agreement that the "norm" in the NT was adult baptism. Two points.

1. Imagine yourself a Jewish convert who has, for thousands of years, as a church, and as an ethnicity, been giving your suckling infant males a sign of inclusion in the group, and now your new pastor tells you the sign is no longer valid. Now your male heirs will have no sign, nothing to remind them who they belong to. Nothing to remind them that they will be cut off, it they apostatize, and nothing to remind them that God said he would rather cut himself in half, and spill his own blood than to fail his promise to them. I personally would be outraged, and I would ask the Pastor to prove it. He having nothing, to show me would, would probably on the pulpit supply list the next week, if not out of a job, and slopping hogs for the gentiles.

2. Unless all the gentile converts were on the Chinese plan of one child per household, or were on the American plan of planned parenthood, a little elementary math would tell you that the norm was covenant, federal baptism.:banghead:
 
Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.

Congrats, by the way! :)
:coffee:Both my text friends and now my PB friends know that I am not the best speller. Did I just invent a new word?

Here was how I informed my pastor :

“Adam I have a prophecy, I believe we are going to be getting a new member in need of a baptism within nine months. It is extremely likely the new member will have red hair.”

Isn't a prophecy about someone being pregnant deemed a Pregnancy?:D
 
Last edited:
Beeke makes a good case that in all cases the NT is better than the OT (baptism is girls whereas circumcision is only boys, no longer converting to Judaism, etc). To not accept the children as part of the visible covenant would be a step back.

I’ve read a bit from Beeke but have yet to come across that section. Where does he make this case?
 
As you see from these men, as they are sending you to the OT for references, which is the only place to build any confidence in any doctrine, you are looking in the wrong place for the answers. You must look to the old testament for an understanding of sacramental baptism.
You say that you "lean" towards paedo-. That makes you the wrong person to be instructing her on this doctrine. You need someone who is skilled in teaching this doctrine to both of you. I assume your Church is baptistic. If it is, you should submit to the doctrine taught there. If you want to instruct her in a different doctrine then you should go to Church that teaches that doctrine. By teaching a doctrine which is contrary to that which your Church adheres to is teaching her that your Church is wrong on this point. The logical conclusion is that if they are wrong on one doctrine they may be wrong on others. This is acting as a disrupting factor to her and counterproductive to the work of the shepherds of your Church.
You are in a difficult position to say the least. However you can look at this as an opportunity put wheels on various graces God offers you.
1. You may patiently wait upon the Lord' hand of providence to teach you and her.
2. You may exercise your headship, and leave this Church. Then join a Church which teaches the doctrine that you hold to.
3. The two of you can attend different Churches.
4. You can do nothing.
None of these will be easy, but neither is a sojourn through any wilderness. In fact, that a good place to see the emphasis God puts on this doctrine. God sought to kill Moses for not performing the sign of the Covenant on his own son. Moses did not take responsibility for his own family, and his wife had to do it. She saved his life. God takes this stuff seriously, shouldn't we? (Exodus 4)

Thanks Bill, this is something that we are both praying through and discussing heavily.
 
Good lessons :) Ephesians 5 is our model for loving our wives, and I think it's called the washing of water not only for the purifying effect, but for the gentleness of the washing itself. May God grace you.

I can understand the frustration. I would say though, it's ultimately a mercy. The one thing you do not want is to go into eldership in a church/denomination where you cannot confidently subscribe to its confession. It would be insincere at best no matter how you tried to make it work. However, God is a God of great providences. If He has put a gift in you, He's not going to remove it just because you need a clearer understanding of the Word, and this may be part of placing you in the exact place where he would have you serve, first as a church member, and if He wills, as an elder. So, your desire to know the truth on baptism is a cooperation with His Spirit, and not a resistance. That's a comfort. If Christ is the one giving gifts in Ephesians 4, then Christ is the one putting them in their proper congregations.

But I would say, study and study the Scriptures themselves on this matter until you are fully convinced fully from Scripture one way or the other. The Lord bless you in it. Having been on both sides of the baptism debate I can say, if God made me an elder, I'd be happier to do it as a paedo than a credo. I am as a parent for sure.

@Bill Duncan has advice in his post well worth heeding. Studying and searching these things out together is one thing, though it has to be done in light of both of you having membership vows to uphold. When we switched views we were advised by paedo friends not to propogate our views because we were still under membership at an RB church though we then lived in another state. I think joint study is permitted, and no elder should ever hinder honest inquiry into Bible teaching, nor would they desire to, but when it begins to look like propogation of a contrary view then conflicts arise.

The education complicates it. If your sending church is paying for your education, it seems some discussions with your elders back home may be in order, depending on just how far into the PB position you lean. However, I don't have any experience in such things.

The education does complicate matters but not too much. Our pastors encouraged us to go, but our church is not financially helping us in this matter.
 
I would suggest to read the new testament and see how the new testament itself testifies that it is a continuation of God's one revelation and one covenant. The passages in Luke 1 (song of Mary, song of Zacharias) are especially helpful when refuting dispensationlism in my opinion. Also Galatians is extremely helpful, as is Romans 4. Romans 11 is also helpful in that it teaches that the gentiles are grafted into the ONE olive tree, showing continuation and unity between OT and NT believers.

Then, when that obstacle is overcome, then you can start using the OT in your arguments. Until then, point to the household baptisms; however, realize that those won't seem as significant until it is realized that the household baptisms are simply with keeping in line with how the covenant sign has always been applied since the time of Abraham. Therefore, I would advise to discover the continuity of the covenant of grace first.
 
I’ve read a bit from Beeke but have yet to come across that section. Where does he make this case?

I believe from this series: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....yword=Child+Rearing&keyworddesc=Child+Rearing

I believe it is the longer version of what this book was distilled from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12546319-parenting-by-god-s-promises

I listened to it over a year ago, so cannot tell you which lecture (was a Sunday school class, not a sermon) it was.
 
This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:

"How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." (Rom. 4:10-12)

In the OT, believing preceded the sign of the covenant. Abraham is still the father of believers. There is no difference between the OT and NT in this regard.

Should OT infants have received the sign of the covenant? They did. Was this household principle abrogated or further established in the NT? Who was baptized? Households!

Hope this helps...
Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.
 
Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.

Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.

Both spiritual circumcision/baptism occur before the physical sign is applied in the sacrament.
 
I do not believe the scripture clearly presents infant baptism as a replacement for the mark of the covenant ... When scripture is silent that's how I stay. Like many I have gone back and forth.. all of my children were baptized as infants in the RC tradition as was I... However after I was saved I was baptized as an adult because I wanted my Death and resurrection with Christ to be my decision and proclamation.
 
How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?

Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

They all believed. And they all were baptized. That's the clear biblical pattern.
 
Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

They all believed. And they all were baptized. That's the clear biblical pattern.

That depends on what bible version you read. Read the ESV, and it is rendered differently. There obviously is some ambiguity here in terms of who the "rejoicing" and "believing" includes.

Secondly, you can't have a "pattern" if in the passage immediately previous, we know that Lydia's entire household is baptized and the only person who is mentioned having faith is herself.

Thirdly, "all" does not necessarily mean every individual indiscriminately. If it did, you would have to conclude that there was not a single individual in the household who was too young to understand the gospel, including all extended family, and servants - which seems a bit ridiculous. Of course, we don't need to go to such lengths, because rarely in the Bible does the word "all" refer to every individual without exception. In fact, in many places it refers to "all sorts of people", or "all types" to denote something that is pervasively true but may not be exhaustively true.

Therefore, it is also possible that not every single indivudal was baptized - but that in general, it is pervasively true that those of his household were baptized (some may have refused the rite). The point that Luke is making is not to make a 1 to 1 accounting of belief to baptism, but to put forth a general principle; that is, that on belief of the head of the household, regardless of the number of additional household members who believed, the sign was applied to those in the house. This is of course, in keeping with how God has always applied the sign of inclusion in his people. You of course know how circumcision was applied.

It's the same covenant. It's the same promise "I will be your God, you will be my people" through Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Acts, and Revelation. Baptism clearly is given to mark out those who are part of God's visible people, and there is no reason to start applying this type of sign any different unless God told us to - which he hasn't. It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless. Why would God give a visible sign to point out the invisible church? Such a sign is useless because we can't really know if it truly points to the reality or not.
 
It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless.

Confessional Baptists do not believe baptism is a 'visible sign to mark out the invisible church'. We fully admit (as do Paedos) that some who receive water baptism are hypocrites.
 
Hi Terry,
How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?

Do you think that “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” means that the whole family will be saved if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.

When a Baptist reads this, we read it like “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, [this promise is for] you and your household." Meaning, not only is he (the Philippian jailer) able to lay claim to this promise, but his duly evangelized family as well.
 
Confessional Baptists do not believe baptism is a 'visible sign to mark out the invisible church'. We fully admit (as do Paedos) that some who receive water baptism are hypocrites.

That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized.

Baptists of course emphasize the "being united to Christ" aspect of baptism, and thus will only baptize someone if the person gives a credible profession of faith. This of course is because the presupposition is that faith must precede baptism.
 
Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

If you remain consistent covenantally, this is rendered from a Federal head perspective; When the federal head believes, so does 'his house'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top