Vos on Infant Baptism

[Stephen L Smith]

Mea culpa, Stephen, mea culpa. I repent in dust and ashes. You are now most definitely more sanctified than I because of your supereragotory work in quoting Vos AND Bavinck. That's definitely fewer years spent in purgatory for you, my friend.

I had a hearty laugh Perhaps I should say I come from a very Irish part of New Zealand If you can answer a question I can get you back on the road to fuller sanctifcation Seriously, I am aware of a number of Reformed Baptist expositions on Heb 10 and the new covenant in Hebrews (eg, James White). I am interested in paedobaptist alternatives to compare. What are your thoughts of Hebrews Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillips) on these passages - Heb 10 and the new covenant.

I did another post looking for an expository commentary on the book of Revelation. Interested in your comments on Joel Beeke vs Richard Phillips. My guess is that both the Reformed Expository Commentary, and the Lectio Continua Commentary Series will continue to be solid expository commentaries for the lay believer.

 

[greenbaggins]

I had a hearty laugh Perhaps I should say I come from a very Irish part of New Zealand If you can answer a question I can get you back on the road to fuller sanctifcation Seriously, I am aware of a number of Reformed Baptist expositions on Heb 10 and the new covenant in Hebrews (eg, James White). I am interested in paedobaptist alternatives to compare. What are your thoughts of Hebrews Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillips) on these passages - Heb 10 and the new covenant.

I did another post looking for an expository commentary on the book of Revelation. Interested in your comments on Joel Beeke vs Richard Phillips. My guess is that both the Reformed Expository Commentary, and the Lectio Continua Commentary Series will continue to be solid expository commentaries for the lay believer.

The best treatment of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews that I know of is Richard Pratt's article. Short answer: Jeremiah 31 has an already/not yet structure that is not immediately obvious at first glance. And yet, the obviating of the need for teachers indicates that at least some aspects of Jeremiah 31 are yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, Pratt asks the all-important question: in what does the newness consist? In what aspects is the new covenant new? Is there any continuity with previous covenants? The Reformed believe that the Baptists have an over-realized eschatology when it comes to the promises of Jeremiah 31. A more flexible approach will recognize that not everything happens at once. This allows for far more continuity between the new covenant and the Abrahamic.

On the Revelation commentary question, I will probably surprise you. I have neither Phillips nor Beeke yet. I finished preaching Revelation about two years ago, before either of them came out. Purchasing Revelation commentaries has therefore been a bit lower on my radar screen. I found Beale, Johnson, Koester, Resseguie, Kelly, and Hamilton to be the most helpful. As to Beeke and Phillips, I would imagine that they will both be extremely valuable. I know Phillips's commentaries better than Beeke's, and so I would probably give a slight priority to Phillips. However, I'm sure both are great.

 

[Myson]

I am a Reformed Baptist now questioning my Reformed Baptist convictions I am interested in specific helpful paedobaptst resourses that might help in my situation:

1. I am planning on getting Vos' Reformed Dogmatics soon. I noted in the section on the sacraments, the introduction states "Approximately 60 percent more attention is given to baptism alone than to eschatology, ... The in-depth discussion of the church and of the sacraments will repay careful reading in any number of places. Even those who disagree at points—say, in the case made for infant baptism—will be stimulated by the challenge to their own thinking." Does Vos make a substantial case for the paedobaptist position?
2. Other advice/resourses that would be relevant to those of us from a Reformed Baptist position (including the 1689 Federalism) would be much appreciated.

There's been a lot of great answers here. In my own experience, what I found so frustrating about so many of the books I was reading about infant baptism was that they weren't really considering that the reader might not actually hold to the same presuppositions - or even use the same language! - as they were. I'd read tons about, "the sign and the thing signified," or "baptism actually confers that which it seals in faith," coupled with, "baptism is just water over the body and nothing more," but doubled down on stuff like, "the seal of baptism is nothing less than the seal of salvation." This stuff drove me crazy and I'd often read all of these seeming contradictions in the same author, despite their very good intentions. They just never seemed to have the non-reformed Baptist in mind; someone who might be more rural (in my case) and whose only understanding of infant baptism was that it was Catholic and that you were Catholic for doing it.

I hope you don't run into the same roadblocks. Honestly, the clearest, most helpful book I have ever read on this topic at all, was Robert Letham's The Christian's Pocket Guide to Baptism: The Water that Unites. I could not recommend this book highly enough, and wish I could give it away to every single Christian I know. It is short, helpful, concise, and helpfully draws up the real presuppositions we have (besides inerrency), and shows how those presuppositions are good, necessary, and Biblical. Again, highly highly recommended.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The best treatment of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews that I know of is Richard Pratt's article.

As to Beeke and Phillips, I would imagine that they will both be extremely valuable. I know Phillips's commentaries better than Beeke's, and so I would probably give a slight priority to Phillips.

Thanks Lane. This was very informative, and I did purchase the Phillips commentary.

 

[Solparvus]

I gave a good look to the Federalism document you posted. My concern is that the view doesn’t account for all the Biblical data.

For example, it says the Abrahamic Covenant is primarily temporal, and only has a shadowy and typical significance, but is not even an administration of the Covenant of Grace. If it’s not so much as an administration, then how is it that even the NT interprets circumcision as sealing to Abraham his righteousness by faith (Romans 4)? It’s not just a shadow and type of Gospel blessing, but it’s confirmation to Abraham that he really has it. Thus, even its Old Testament significance is much more than marking out a physical people, and to miss that significance was no small matter. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stiff-necked.” Even Moses knew it wasn’t just about physical people, and you’ll frequently see the OT and NT both preach circumcision as primarily referring to spiritual realities, and it signified to them that they could—and must—have it.

I have to conclude that circumcision has no significance apart from the CG since it’s true and primary significance is in salvific benefits, and Israel should have understood that, and the view of circumcision later as a saving work was a perversion. So, circumcision preaches the Gospel, thus it administers the Covenant of Grace.

So, from here circumcision looks less like a national or tribal mark and looks more like a church sacrament, and the AC has more to do with the formation of a church than a nation. Again, administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Also, God says to Abraham, “I am your shield. Your reward shall be very great.” God had become much more to Abraham than just his national, external God, but really was his God in a saving sense. For what other reason would God want to be someone's God if not in that sense? That’s confirmed by the words which shortly follow, that he believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. "In you shall all nations be blessed" is preaching, "I am going to reconcile the peoples of the earth back to myself," which assumes the Gospel. Also, God says, “to be God to you and your offspring after you” in Genesis 17. If it’s only national, but not an administration of the CG, then God is proposing to be God to both Abraham and Israel by covenant in less of a sense than He did to Abraham in earlier chapters. However, that’s less than what circumcision—the sign of the covenant—represents, and it doesn't go as far as what is implied in all that's contained in the language of the AC. So, it does administer the Covenant of Grace.

But also, in what sense will all the nations be blessed? I can’t imagine that God would set his sights any lower in this promise than bringing salvation to the nations. Wouldn’t this covenant then be a way of administering the covenant of grace?

Yes it all looks forward to Christ, but God is making promises of salvation right then and there that Abraham could stake his soul on. The message to Abraham was, "You are mine, and I am your God, and your sins are forgiven. Here is a sign to you, circumcision, to prove it to you. And this same sign is going to preach to all your generations that they too may have the same blessing the same way you got it--by faith."

This is no denial of the temporal aspects of the covenant, as the immediate promises really are a physical people, a land, and a kingly line,and God did deliver those as promised, with the reign of David and Solomon being the glorious temporal climax of that fulfillment. However, the spirit of the Abrahamic Covenant demands that it go much further.

I know this is only one aspect of the article, but the Abrahamic Covenant is the basis of so much that happens in the NT, so having this covenant right is key to understanding the NT itself. I think many of the other things said in the summary would be answered too.

 

[Cymro]

I would support Jake’s contribution, and add one or two points. If the covenant to Abraham promised temporal blessings, eg, the promised land for instance, how then does Hebrews teach of these OT saints, “these all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were Persuaded of them, and Embraced them,and confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare Plainly, that they seek a country, - - -but now they desire a better country.”

 

[RefPres1647]

Ligon Duncan’s RTS class on Covenant Theology is free online and very helpful to understand the foundation of infant baptism.

I actually took this class in the Fall online. He makes it very easy to understand with plenty of scripture and goes through each covenant very well.

A book I would recommend that I read a few months ago is "Infant Baptism & the Silence of the New Testament" by Brian Holstrom. He is an elder in the OPC and really makes a great case for how the covenants are meant for us and our children.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The best treatment of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews that I know of is Richard Pratt's article.

That is an excellent article, and very helpful. He's right on point in it.

 

[beloved7]

Apologize for the ever so slight topic change, but if one were to change their position, and their children were in the inbetween years, so to speak, what would they then do? I've only ever seen infant baptism or teens and up. Never elementry school age. Just an observation.

 

[Gforce9]

Apologize for the ever so slight topic change, but if one were to change their position, and their children were in the inbetween years, so to speak, what would they then do? I've only ever seen infant baptism or teens and up. Never elementry school age. Just an observation.

David,
This was our experience. The kids were about 13 and 11 when we joined a congressionally Reformed church. The session will need to review each situation as presented them. Ours handled it with wisdom and integrity....

 

[beloved7]

David,
This was our experience. The kids were about 13 and 11 when we joined a congressionally Reformed church. The session will need to review each situation as presented them. Ours handled it with wisdom and integrity....

Fascinating, as this is rarely spoken of yet it would have to be more common than one would think. Out of curiousity, was there any type of profession of faith inquired about or anything of that nature? Or was it more along the lines of deciphering the nature of your (and I assume wife as well) faith?

Genuiney curious.

 

[Gforce9]

Fascinating, as this is rarely spoken of yet it would have to be more common than one would think. Out of curiousity, was there any type of profession of faith inquired about or anything of that nature? Or was it more along the lines of deciphering the nature of your (and I assume wife as well) faith?

Genuiney curious.

They were treated as Covenant children of their parents; no profession requested from them. I may have the ages off a little.....I don't recall for sure.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

That is an excellent article, and very helpful. He's right on point in it.

I have been reading it with great profit. I note his reference to Heb 10 and covenant breaking "the Lord will judge his people". Matthew, I am aware that Heb 10 was one of the passages that convinced you of paedobaptism. Can you recommend any helpful resources on this - especially online material [I am reading through Thomas Blake at present with great profit]. Thanks.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have been reading it with great profit. I note his reference to Heb 10 and covenant breaking "the Lord will judge his people". Matthew, I am aware that Heb 10 was one of the passages that convinced you of paedobaptism. Can you recommend any helpful resources on this - especially online material [I am reading through Thomas Blake at present with great profit]. Thanks.

Stephen,

The warning passages became an issue when I was working through this in a reformed Baptist church I attended for some years. They "more or less" (and some blatantly) dismissed those passages as "not for the elect" since the elect will never fall away. One said, "Those don't apply to me because I'm elect."

I didn't really deal with a specific book or passage on "that" issue. Instead, I dealt with hermeneutics and the relevance it had on interpreting those passages in light of me, as a believer, (believers alone can understand the relevance of those passages, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Co. 2:14), and the importance of Hebrew's argument over and against Israel's rebellion.) which meant the warning passages applied to me as a covenanted member of the church as they have in every age, without the possibility of dismissal - stipulations on the covenant always apply. This in turn pressed me to further consider how hermeneutics worked, and how there is a differentiation between how God wills and decrees both election and reprobation (i.e. trampling the blood of the Son of God and not having any more sacrifice for sin...etc.). That in turn pressed me to expand my Master's thesis into my Ph.D. work on "The Two Wills of God." (God doesn't have two wills BTW). It is all based on hermeneutics, (i.e. how 1 Samuel 15 says, " "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king" and at the end of the chapter it says, "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." (1Sa. 15:29). I Samuel daft? God repents, then Samuel says he doesn't?) It devolved into the compound and divided sense without which one cannot understand Scripture. It's simply impossible to understand Scripture while "doing hermeneutics wrong."

Turretin was "mostly clear" on how to handle the two senses (he didn't explain them, but just used them all over the place). All the reformers talk about them, but not with those precise terms (they would say "after the manner of men"). In any case, it was really dealing with Scripture that did it in light of those hermeneutical rules. The warning passages are for me, not reprobate Harry. As a result, the dominoes started tumbling very quickly at that point. (i.e. it wasn't at all about Baptism, but about covenant concepts.)

After wading through all that, baptism (and infant baptism) is the last 5 minutes on a 5 month study on CT.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

That is an excellent article, and very helpful. He's right on point in it.

I have been appreciating it too but aware of James White's response to Pratt. Any responses to Dr White? http://www.rbap.net/james-white-v-richard-l-pratt-jr-and-the-notyet-of-the-new-covenant/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have been appreciating it too but aware of James White's response to Pratt. Any responses to Dr White?

We aren't in heaven yet. We're just not. Do we have (and don't we need) teachers, 31:34, today? Certain aspects of this prophetic hope require the consummate stage of history to be fully realized. As long as that is not here, then in spite of the fact that Jesus has come and the New Covenant is inaugurated, we have to cope with the tension of already/not yet.

The Baptist does not see that the New Covenant is actually administered in an earthly (and imperfect) way. It's his choice to interpret texts like Jer.31 not comparatively (as merely "better," to use the favorite expression of Hebrews) but as pristine ideal. So, there is nothing but the Spirit's administration. But then the covenant isn't actually IN the world.

Once you concede that there is meaningful administration through the church, then what we don't see done perfectly (yet identify as NC experience) pushes "seeing perfectly done" into the future state.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

We aren't in heaven yet. We're just not.

Well Lord of the Ring's fans know I live in Middle Earth. Also I live very close to Hobbiton. Isn't this very close to the ideal of heaven.

The Baptist does not see that the New Covenant is actually administered in an earthly (and imperfect) way. It's his choice to interpret texts like Jer.31 not comparatively (as merely "better," to use the favorite expression of Hebrews) but as pristine ideal.

Yes, I have come to see this. James White obviously has an over realised eschatology. He is an elder in a Reformed Baptist church yet he surely baptises on a profession of faith not actual faith.