Infants as members of the covenant by birth

[Knight]

I was scrolling through some of the old threads here and found this discussion, in which it was stated and affirmed by several people that "infants are part of the covenant by birth."

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/calvin-efficacy-baptism-2561/

I am currently discussing infant baptism with a credo-baptist who is arguing that such was the case in the OT, when the Messianic promise of the Abrahamic covenant was yet to be fulfilled, but with the fulfillment of that promise came the new covenant in which one can only be a member by being born of the Spirit. He uses Romans 11:17-24 as his supporting passage.

I am thinking that he is conflating the visible with invisible church (the external covenant community with the internal), but am having trouble expressing this. I think that if I were able to show that "infants are part of the covenant by birth," I would not be having so much trouble. Could someone please explain the Scriptural reasons for believing this and/or comment on the credo-baptist's argument?

 

[Knight]

Also, would slaves in the households of believers have been baptized like they would have been circumcised (cf. Genesis 17)?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Ryan:

I think the best way to explain the effects of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant would be to point your friend to the Great Commission: "Go you therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Mt 28:19. I would then point out to him that Christian parents are commanded to disciple their children - to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That the children of believers are under the teaching authority of the church. Consequently, they are disciples, and, according to the Great Commission, they should be baptized.

Though we do not practice slavery today I would say yes the slaves of believers, being in the household of a believer, and, consequently, under the teaching authority of the church, should be considered disciples as well.

Hope this helps,

In Jesus,

Rob

 

[Peairtach]

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (I Cor 7:14, ESV)

The children of those who profess faith in the God of Israel are covenantally holy, as they have been since the time of Abraham. Therefore they should receive the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant in its New Covenant phase i.e. baptism.

The Apostle to the Gentiles in Romans 9 and in Galatians isn't talking about excluding the children of those who profess faith in Christ from the administration of the Covenant but is saying that not all those who are included in the administration of the Covenant, whether Jews or Gentiles, will be regenerate/elect i.e. the Children of Promise. Not all those in the outward administration of the New Covenant phase of the Abrahamic Covenant will prove to be children of promise like Isaac.

This is true for baptists too. They sometimes have to cast out Ishmaels that prove not to be Isaacs.

The reason is that when God engrafts an individual into the Olive Tree of the Covenant (Romans 9-11) He also engrafts their children that they may partake of the root and fatness of the Olive Tree too. Baptists are saying that God changed policy in the New Covenant and only engrafts individuall branches, while breaking off the twigs and twiglets and excluding them from any particular privileges, promises and responsibilities.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ryan,

Have you run across Clark's treatment of this:

Infant Baptism - Clark

AMR

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ryan,
The reason why the baptism issue is intractable is because both "sides" come to the table having pretty much a sewn-up case coming in. It's a "package," with reinforcing texts already employed.

You argue that children belong, because God put them in in Abraham's day. And he hasn't removed them, so they're still in. Rom.11:17-24 isn't even remotely connected to the issue of covenant-children, because God was breaking off branches and grafting in (a few) new ones since Abraham's own day. Now, he's doing it in spades. Christ is the true vine, and he always was. All elect people of all ages were/are/will be saved by faith in Christ alone.

The other side argues that there is no more visible "vine," as such in the world anymore. Israel is fulfilled in Christ, and Christ is in heaven, and that means no more visible administration of the Covenant (depending on the conversation, the person may not even believe in a single covenant of grace). Everything to do with the New Covenant is spiritual, invisible, inside of men, or in heaven with Jesus the Mediator. So, for them the idea of children in the covenant now just doesn't make sense--no more than the idea that children are not included in it makes any sense whatever to us.

Jesus said of the infants who were in his very arms, "to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." Obviously, that text is going to be taken and turned to another meaning by the other side, just like the household texts and all the others. Here's where you just have to ask for yourself, "Does the text have to mean what he says it must, or have I a perfectly sane and plain interpretation that does no violence to the text or to the fabric of my theology." Jesus doesn't repeat himself in that passage (Mk.10; Lk.18; cf.Mt.19). The children (some infants, Lk.18:15) themselves are kingdom citizens, according to Christ. The forceful point Jesus makes is that the dull disciples themselves need to receive the kingdom in the same manner that the little ones are only capable of.

But this explanation is not likely to persuade your debater. He will say Jesus is basically repeating himself. That the kingdom only belongs to ones like children. That Jesus is simply loving. He may argue that this moment comes before the cross, and the kingdom only takes its present form after he is rejected. Or something else, but whatever this passage means, it certainly doesn't mean that some infants and children are members of Christ's New Covenant Kingdom and Church, and even if they are, the passage still doesn't say anything about baptism!

But you started out with the desire to see if you can find evidence that children (some of them anyway) can, in fact, be members (in some sense, any sense) of Christ's program. Because, that was the challenge, right? "You can't do it, ergo, you shouldn't baptize your children." You, however, proved your point. He's not going to accept that "if you can prove it, therefore you should baptize." The inversion wasn't a part of your original challenge. But he may interpret your point as if you are now prepared to turn the tables, and demand that he see things your way. No, you aren't expecting him to do so. But he may well try to make is seem as though you did NOT prove your point that covenant children should be baptized. But the misdirection should not make you less-satisfied about what you are satisfied you DID prove, which was a more modest conclusion.