Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
I just posted this on my blog today... thought I might get some good feedback here.
I leave you with a couple thoughts on the subject of infant baptism, which I have been examining for the last couple months.
1. The first concerns Acts 2:38, 39: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
(a.) Against the claims of Reformed Baptists, I cannot help but consider this passage to be a virtual republication of the covenant made with Abraham: that the promise, or covenant, "is unto you, and to your children" (corresponding to Genesis 17:7, "And I will establish my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"); "and to all that are afar off" (corresponding to Genesis 12:3, "And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed"; cf. Genesis 17:4, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations").
(b.) Reformed Baptists usually maintain that the last phrase refers to effectual calling, and is therefore a limitation placed upon the preceding categories of people; and that therefore it does not respect the children of the hearers, in their capacity as children, but only as they are effectually called (which would be demonstrated by a credible profession of faith). This construction of the passage seems to be forced, for the following reasons: (1.) Verse 39 is presented as an argument or motive why Peter's hearers should repent and be baptized. What kind of argument is it to tell people that they should repent, because only the elect and regenerate will do so? How does the one naturally and logically follow from the other? (2.) It seems more natural to suppose that this refers to the outward call of the gospel: that "the promise (that is, the gospel offer) is unto you (to whom it is preached, and to whom it was just preached in Peter's preceding sermon), and (in you) to your children (whom you represent), and to all that are afar off (when the gospel will be preached to them as well), even as many as the Lord our God shall call (outwardly by the preaching of the gospel)."
(c.) Here we have Peter preaching the very first apostolic, New Covenant sermon ever preached. When the Jews begged of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" he responded, "Repent, and be baptized... For the promise is unto you, and to your children." We tend to think of these words in terms of modern-day, twenty-first century Reformed polemics; consider his audience for just a moment. He was addressing a large company of Jews and Jewish proselytes (Acts 2:8-11) -- men who were actually in the Abrahamic covenant, togther with their children. The men to whom he spoke these words had their children in covenant with God at that very moment; although some may question whether the particular "household baptisms" mentioned in the New Testament included infants, I hope that no one will suggest that not one person in an assembly of Jews that produced three thousand converts (Acts 2:41) had any infant children. So Peter says to them, "The promise is unto you, and to your children." What would they think? How would they understand such terminology? Is it not highly suggestive of continuing the practice of the covenant inclusion of children in which they were presently engaged? Again, this is the first New Covenant sermon, where Reformed Baptists posit a vast change in the constitution of the church, or the members of the covenant. If Peter was, by these words, trying to tell these Jews and Jewish proselytes that the New Covenant is only open to believers, and that their children are positively excluded and cast out of the covenant; then all I can say is that he used some very funny language to express it.
2. The second concerns the idea of the inclusion of children in covenants in general, and not just in the covenant of grace particularly (or in the Abrahamic or New Covenant expressions of the covenant of grace even more particularly). Because we are getting more general in our examination, it is necessary that we get a little more general in our definitions; so I will define the more basic or general position as "covenanters and their children or seed" (rather than the more particular "believers and their infant children or seed"). In this case, by "covenanters" I mean those that knowingly and consciously enter into covenant with God.
(a.) As Reformed believers, we maintain the abiding validity of the Sabbath (and no, I'm not getting off-topic; trust me on this). Par of our argument for this rests in the fact that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, dating from Genesis 2:1-3. But the real argument is not just the idea that it is a creation ordinance; it is the fact that, because it is a creation ordinance, the Sabbath was given to man prior to his fall. Because ceremonial laws were only given after the fall of man into sin, in order to typify redemption, and point the way to Christ, this means that the Sabbath cannot be intrinsically ceremonial; it must be essentially moral, and part of the moral and perpetual law of God, although certain aspects of it may become ceremonial (such as its association with the seventh day of the week).
(b.) But I assert that two covenants existed prior to the fall, and both were made with "covenanters and their children or seed."
(1.) The more well-known of these is the covenant of works, made by God with Adam and his children or seed (that is, all of humanity). In this covenant, Adam was the one who properly covenanted with God; and by doing so, he represented all humanity. Had he kept the covenant of works, his seed would have reaped the benefit and received the blessing with him; but because of his sin, his seed inherited the curse together with him. This covenant was plainly before the fall (indeed, it is the breach of this already-established covenant which we call the fall), and therefore prior to all ceremonies, all types of redemption by Christ; so that the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" is not typical, and could not have been done away with or abrogated under the New Testament.
(2.) The other covenant preceding the covenant of grace, the fall of man, and all types and ceremonies, is what is commonly known as the covenant of redemption. This covenant was made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son, considered as the Mediator or God-Man, in which the Father gave the elect to the Son, for Him to work out their perfect and full redemption. The covenant of grace is the external outworking or application of the covenant of redemption, in actual space and time; as God has His elect who are brought to faith by the Spirit using the preaching of the Word, so also God has established a covenant of grace for the elect, and they are brought to experience that salvation by the external means of grace in the covenant of grace.
This covenant of redemption is recognized by Reformed Baptists in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): "This covenant (the covenant of grace) is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by father steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency" (Second London Baptist Confession, 7:3).
As was indicated before, in this covenant Christ represented the elect. The interesting thing is that Scripture frequently refers to the elect in this capacity as His children or seed. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says (Q. 31), "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." It should be noted that here, by "the covenant of grace," is understood the covenant of grace in its eternal aspect (which theologians usually call the covenant of redemption). Hebrews 2:12 represents Christ as saying, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me" (cf. Isa. 8:18). In perhaps the most well-known prophecy of the person and sufferings of Christ occurring in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, we read concerning those for whom He died, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (v. 10). Probably the most extended treatment of this comes in Psalm 89:28-37. Reading through verses 19-27 makes it very clear that this Person is quite more than merely "David" (v. 20), but must in fact be the Son of David, our Lord. "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven" (vs. 27-29). Note also how this last passage explicitly ties the concept of Christ's "seed" who He represents to His covenant with the Father. These passages make it quite clear that, when Christ entered into covenant with His Father in eternity past, representing His elect people, that they are properly called His "children" or "seed."
This actually presents a much stronger argument than the argument from the covenant of works. The covenant of works was established before the covenant of grace and the ceremonies and types, but it was still established in time. But the covenant of redemption was established in eternity past, before there was a creation. In other words, the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" being in covenant is not only prior to the types and ceremonies of the old dispensation of the covenant of grace; it is a principle which has, very literally, ALWAYS existed; which means that there is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to ALWAYS exist.
I leave you with a couple thoughts on the subject of infant baptism, which I have been examining for the last couple months.
1. The first concerns Acts 2:38, 39: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
(a.) Against the claims of Reformed Baptists, I cannot help but consider this passage to be a virtual republication of the covenant made with Abraham: that the promise, or covenant, "is unto you, and to your children" (corresponding to Genesis 17:7, "And I will establish my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"); "and to all that are afar off" (corresponding to Genesis 12:3, "And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed"; cf. Genesis 17:4, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations").
(b.) Reformed Baptists usually maintain that the last phrase refers to effectual calling, and is therefore a limitation placed upon the preceding categories of people; and that therefore it does not respect the children of the hearers, in their capacity as children, but only as they are effectually called (which would be demonstrated by a credible profession of faith). This construction of the passage seems to be forced, for the following reasons: (1.) Verse 39 is presented as an argument or motive why Peter's hearers should repent and be baptized. What kind of argument is it to tell people that they should repent, because only the elect and regenerate will do so? How does the one naturally and logically follow from the other? (2.) It seems more natural to suppose that this refers to the outward call of the gospel: that "the promise (that is, the gospel offer) is unto you (to whom it is preached, and to whom it was just preached in Peter's preceding sermon), and (in you) to your children (whom you represent), and to all that are afar off (when the gospel will be preached to them as well), even as many as the Lord our God shall call (outwardly by the preaching of the gospel)."
(c.) Here we have Peter preaching the very first apostolic, New Covenant sermon ever preached. When the Jews begged of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" he responded, "Repent, and be baptized... For the promise is unto you, and to your children." We tend to think of these words in terms of modern-day, twenty-first century Reformed polemics; consider his audience for just a moment. He was addressing a large company of Jews and Jewish proselytes (Acts 2:8-11) -- men who were actually in the Abrahamic covenant, togther with their children. The men to whom he spoke these words had their children in covenant with God at that very moment; although some may question whether the particular "household baptisms" mentioned in the New Testament included infants, I hope that no one will suggest that not one person in an assembly of Jews that produced three thousand converts (Acts 2:41) had any infant children. So Peter says to them, "The promise is unto you, and to your children." What would they think? How would they understand such terminology? Is it not highly suggestive of continuing the practice of the covenant inclusion of children in which they were presently engaged? Again, this is the first New Covenant sermon, where Reformed Baptists posit a vast change in the constitution of the church, or the members of the covenant. If Peter was, by these words, trying to tell these Jews and Jewish proselytes that the New Covenant is only open to believers, and that their children are positively excluded and cast out of the covenant; then all I can say is that he used some very funny language to express it.
2. The second concerns the idea of the inclusion of children in covenants in general, and not just in the covenant of grace particularly (or in the Abrahamic or New Covenant expressions of the covenant of grace even more particularly). Because we are getting more general in our examination, it is necessary that we get a little more general in our definitions; so I will define the more basic or general position as "covenanters and their children or seed" (rather than the more particular "believers and their infant children or seed"). In this case, by "covenanters" I mean those that knowingly and consciously enter into covenant with God.
(a.) As Reformed believers, we maintain the abiding validity of the Sabbath (and no, I'm not getting off-topic; trust me on this). Par of our argument for this rests in the fact that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, dating from Genesis 2:1-3. But the real argument is not just the idea that it is a creation ordinance; it is the fact that, because it is a creation ordinance, the Sabbath was given to man prior to his fall. Because ceremonial laws were only given after the fall of man into sin, in order to typify redemption, and point the way to Christ, this means that the Sabbath cannot be intrinsically ceremonial; it must be essentially moral, and part of the moral and perpetual law of God, although certain aspects of it may become ceremonial (such as its association with the seventh day of the week).
(b.) But I assert that two covenants existed prior to the fall, and both were made with "covenanters and their children or seed."
(1.) The more well-known of these is the covenant of works, made by God with Adam and his children or seed (that is, all of humanity). In this covenant, Adam was the one who properly covenanted with God; and by doing so, he represented all humanity. Had he kept the covenant of works, his seed would have reaped the benefit and received the blessing with him; but because of his sin, his seed inherited the curse together with him. This covenant was plainly before the fall (indeed, it is the breach of this already-established covenant which we call the fall), and therefore prior to all ceremonies, all types of redemption by Christ; so that the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" is not typical, and could not have been done away with or abrogated under the New Testament.
(2.) The other covenant preceding the covenant of grace, the fall of man, and all types and ceremonies, is what is commonly known as the covenant of redemption. This covenant was made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son, considered as the Mediator or God-Man, in which the Father gave the elect to the Son, for Him to work out their perfect and full redemption. The covenant of grace is the external outworking or application of the covenant of redemption, in actual space and time; as God has His elect who are brought to faith by the Spirit using the preaching of the Word, so also God has established a covenant of grace for the elect, and they are brought to experience that salvation by the external means of grace in the covenant of grace.
This covenant of redemption is recognized by Reformed Baptists in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): "This covenant (the covenant of grace) is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by father steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency" (Second London Baptist Confession, 7:3).
As was indicated before, in this covenant Christ represented the elect. The interesting thing is that Scripture frequently refers to the elect in this capacity as His children or seed. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says (Q. 31), "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." It should be noted that here, by "the covenant of grace," is understood the covenant of grace in its eternal aspect (which theologians usually call the covenant of redemption). Hebrews 2:12 represents Christ as saying, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me" (cf. Isa. 8:18). In perhaps the most well-known prophecy of the person and sufferings of Christ occurring in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, we read concerning those for whom He died, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (v. 10). Probably the most extended treatment of this comes in Psalm 89:28-37. Reading through verses 19-27 makes it very clear that this Person is quite more than merely "David" (v. 20), but must in fact be the Son of David, our Lord. "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven" (vs. 27-29). Note also how this last passage explicitly ties the concept of Christ's "seed" who He represents to His covenant with the Father. These passages make it quite clear that, when Christ entered into covenant with His Father in eternity past, representing His elect people, that they are properly called His "children" or "seed."
This actually presents a much stronger argument than the argument from the covenant of works. The covenant of works was established before the covenant of grace and the ceremonies and types, but it was still established in time. But the covenant of redemption was established in eternity past, before there was a creation. In other words, the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" being in covenant is not only prior to the types and ceremonies of the old dispensation of the covenant of grace; it is a principle which has, very literally, ALWAYS existed; which means that there is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to ALWAYS exist.
