Ep 95: The Foundational Arguments for Paedobaptism

Hello and welcome. I'm your host. Gaiman, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages at Shepherd's Seminary. Related to scripture and theology. For more information, visit Petergaiman.com Well, a happy holiday weekend to everyone listening. Of course, you may not be listening to this on the holiday weekend. But you are welcome regardless and I hope that

This episode will be helpful to you. We are talking about baptism. And specifically last time we talked about how baptism in Scripture is linked with faith. And that has been the historical position of the church. And the Catholic Church has talked about that in various ways. The Lutheran uh denomination has worked on that in a variety of ways and then the traditional reformed approach has

through Zwingli adopted a different approach. So there are uh various views on the relationship between faith and baptism. And if We think about how scripture talks about baptism. We're going to transition in this episode to talking specifically about how one argues for Pato baptism. Again, the idea of infant baptism, the fact that you should baptize infants.

And this is important because pretty much everyone in the debate acknowledges that there are no examples of baptized infants in Scripture. Now that's admitted by everyone, obviously. Now the Question then is, well, how come you can have so many people practicing infant baptism? And h why is that the case? How does that look? How would we defend that?

And so it's actually really important to understand the background to this debate. and hear it from the source. I've have collected some quotations and sources from various theologians on this. And it's actually different depending on which camp you're part of. So if you're Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed, which is typically Presbyterian, uh that

is going to be different how you answer that. Which is also a as a sub point, I think this is helpful to point out that when people argue historically saying that, oh, the church has always believed in infant baptism That's a bit of a um red herring or misdirect um for the argument because There has been a prevalence of infant baptism in the church, but it has been defended uh differently by different congregations and

Uh, for different reasons. And so it's not as if it's a monolithic tradition of infant baptism for the same reasons, same purposes, or anything like that. But there are three distinct categories in how you would argue for that. For example, and I'm gonna talk a little bit about Catholicism and Lutheran theology, but we won't major on that. In Catholicism, it's standard belief that you must be born of water and spirit in order to be saved.

So for Catholics that is, you know, one hundred percent you need to be baptized in order to be saved. That is You know, 100% true. And so in Catholic theology, if you want infants to go to heaven, you want to baptize them as early as possible because they need their original sin forgiven. And so this is a bit of a systematic approach, but it's different than the other uh beliefs. But baptism is viewed as the the first Step in the Christian walk.

and all the other sacraments come after that. So obviously the Catholic Church has has many more sacraments than Protestant churches, and we could do an entire episode on that at a future time. But the key is understanding in Catholic theology baptism is the is the gateway or the door through to all the other sacraments. And so right away the the baby needs to be secured in salvation and then you know, raised in that salvation basically. So

There is there is a salvific part of infant baptism that relates to wanting a baby to actually go to heaven. Now, in uh question and answer, I was doing some research through the catholicanswers.com and one of their uh apologists by the name of Tim Staples basically gave Um a two part outline and then a third one which um makes sense if you know Catholic theology is is basically his understanding uh his biblical defense of

how Petopaptism should be understood is that there's an analogy or a comparison with circumcision. Now, again, note that this is different. Circumcision is always coming up in this debate, but for the Catholic, Baptism is basically. the fulfillment of circumcision as a type anti-type relationship. And so baptism has the reality of the sanctifying ink influence.

um the the salvific grace, if you will, attached to it, and so there's a transition there, but it's not related to covenant. This is going to be a major distinction between the views. So there is that correspondence there that they point out to on the basis of Colossians two eleven, which we'll talk about at a future time. And then in Acts two hundred and thirty eight you also have the command to repent and be baptized.

for the forgiveness of sins. And then that is also said for the promises for you and your children, although the verse goes on, but sometimes people forget about that. And so Because there's the mention of children, uh the idea of what is that promise specifically, the promise is for forgiveness, which goes to the children themselves. That's the um thought there. I think if we unpack Acts two thirty eight, it's clear that the promise is referring to something else.

But in in this answer, this is how the Pedobaptism, infant baptism is defended by by the Catholics is, you know, putting putting these two and two together. And then there would also be the standard appeal to history. where you would say, for example, well Augustine sa was very clear on infant baptism. He said that infant baptism was handed down from the apostles

Interestingly enough, uh Augustine also said infant communion was also handed down from the apostles. You know, th um Catholic theology tends to try to appeal to church history more so than Protestant theology just because the belief is that there is tradition also that backs up uh theology and that scripture isn't isn't the highest authority, it is one of the authorities. And so that's typically how infant baptism is defended from a Catholic point of view.

However, Lutheranism is a little more interesting and closer in line with um what perhaps uh you may be familiar with if you're uh familiar with the Reformed tradition. And the individual that I really enjoyed learning from on this with regard to Lutheranism was uh an individual by the name of Jordan B. Cooper. He's a uh adjunct professor of systematic theology and he's also the president of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary, so he definitely knows his Lutheran theology.

Now he actually had a resource, five reasons why babies should be baptized. So this was his defense of that. So I'll just give you those five points. So the first thing is he said baptism is the work of God, not man's work. So in other words, babies should be baptized because baptism is all about God's interaction with human life, not there's no need for a profession or confession of faith.

And that's obviously debatable, but that was just his point. Uh number two, his point was that infants are sinners. Infants are sinners, and so because baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, infants need that forgiveness. So again this this coincides with the belief in the Lutheran understanding that uh baptism does lead to regeneration. And so there is a a element, uh a heavy element in Lutheran theology which is very Catholic like.

where baptism actually does affect forgiveness and regeneration involved. So infants need that as well. His third point is that infants can believe. So this co goes back with the previous episode where Luther himself actually taught that there there was a a faith that infants could have. He didn't really define or defend that very well in in my humble opinion, but that belief has been passed down into Lutheran theology where faith is a gift from God. We acknowledge that.

But uh in Lutheran theology, that's that's a gift that infants themselves can have as well. And there would be places like Luke 1.41 where John the Baptist leaps in the womb when he uh he hears Mary's voice. And so that would be evidence of the fact that John the Baptist already had faith when he was in the womb of Mary. And we could talk more about that at some other time, but I'm just giving you kind of their reasons here.

And then number four, uh, he argues that households are baptized. Now, this is different from the way that Well, let me give you four and five together because I think this this will be a good discussion point. So households are baptized in the New Testament. That's just an observation. Uh like uh you have so and so saved and he and his household are baptized. And so that would seem to indicate that infants should be baptized. And this is a pretty typical argument in every uh camp.

And then with that, number five, God includes children in his gracious promises, and you can reference the same verses that Catholic theologians, Reformed theologians reference Colossians two hundred eleven and Acts two thirty eight. uh which we just talked about. But I need to make an important distinction here because this was actually something he made in his presentation, is he said this is not at all related to covenant.

as a as a uh category. So in the Reformed tradition, uh after Zwingli, uh covenant becomes, you know, the the defining mark for this kind of argument of tracing this theme through scripture. But he was adamant that this is not

um what they're doing in Lutheran theology is they're not they don't see an overall covenant this way. They actually see the fact that God is just being faithful, um, in promising things. Um so uh there there's a distinction there um that's um noted by even Lutheran theologians and they're trying to trying to separate themselves from the Zwinglian view of covenant theology and how that leads to infant baptism. So

There i I I think that's interesting, um, the Catholic and Lutheran views and defenses of Pato baptism. And I think that that's that's helpful to work through and perhaps we will revisit some of their arguments at a future time. But I want to spend most of the time uh in this episode talking about the Reformed view, the traditional Reformed view, which uh aligns itself with Presbyterianism, obviously.

And in order to understand this, we need to understand the presuppositions which the Reformed use to argue for this non regenerative, non salvific infant baptism. And we have to understand covenant theology. It goes back to what we were talking about in the last episode with Zwingli. And so, uh Well one one resource that I would actually commend to you if you're not familiar with it, I know some of the listeners are actually familiar with this book, um, because Dr. Pettigrew, Larry Pettigrew

of Shepherd's Seminary. He's semi retired now. He's focusing mainly on research and writing. But last year he came out with a book um that he edited called Forsaking Israel. And basically in it, I commend it, uh, just because its historical analysis is is just really, really well done. He he traces the development of covenant theology and how it relates to um basically the issues of Israel and the church. And even uh he talks a little bit about Pato baptism in

in that discussion as well. And one of the things that he does well is he relies a lot on covenant theologians themselves, both modern as well as in original sources. to to trace this. And so he just does a great job um talking about Zwingli's contribution, Calvin, um uh thinking through uh uh just how that developed um in the Reformation. And so I'm going to give a summary of what covenant theology talks about.

and how it was kind of born um from Zwingli, developed by Calvin, you know, and as it as it continues to develop into the Westminster Confession of Faith and all those things.

Basically, what you read is that uh in covenant theology, there is the belief that God makes three covenants with mankind. Or I should say there are three covenants, not all with mankind, because the first covenant is a covenant of work. And the covenant of works um is something that God makes with man um before the fall, basically saying, If you if you um fulfill my standard, if you if you are faithful, it's a Um pro Pro Bitionary Covenant or something like that, you could call it.

Um, if you are faithful, for example Adam in the Garden of Eden, if you are faithful, if you fulfill this standard, then you earn your salvation or you earn your your status, as it were. And of course Adam doesn't do that, he he fails the covenant of works, and so God then covenants with mankind what is known as the second covenant, the covenant of grace.

And the covenant of grace is the major overarching theme in covenant theology, where the covenant of grace is basically God's promise to mankind to save them. Um there are within the covenant itself um conditions as well as unconditional elements. And we could definitely talk more about that, but I just want to give a survey right now and then I'll show how this this impacts.

And then there's a third covenant um called the covenant of redemption, which you have God it's an inter Trinitarian uh covenant where God and the Son and the Spirit are making a a bond on how to redeem

uh mankind uh purposing um in their in their sovereign purpose and and election to to do that. Now I will say at the outset that covenant theologians are not monolithic on this. There's just not one camp Uh many covenant theologians reject the idea of a covenant of redemption, and they hold to just the first two, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Some covenant theologians actually are less inclined to believe in a covenant of work.

and or at least some of the um manifestations of that. In fact, there's a big debate. um amongst covenant theologians whether the Mosaic Covenant is related to the covenant of works or whether it's it's a part of the covenant of grace. And so the the reason this is significant, basically I I tell you all that because the covenant of grace is the center point to covenant theology. You can't embrace covenant theology without holding to a covenant of grace.

um that is the linchpin, the center point. And so what is is held to essentially is that the covenant of grace is is God's Only way of dealing with mankind throughout history. God makes one covenant with mankind, and that covenant shows up in different different dispensations or different manifestations, they often call it now, but it's just one one covenant, one way that God deals with man. So how does this relate to infant baptism then? Well it's actually essential to the system.

Because there are two presuppositions then that the Pedo-Baptist argument, at least from the traditional Reformed approach, relies upon. So the first one is that the covenant of grace unifies the Old and New Testaments in continuity. So the covenant of grace is the unifying factor between Old and New Testaments.

And then that's the first that's the first pillar. The second pillar is that there is one people of God, meaning there is no Israel church distinction. Those two pillars, so covenant of grace, unifying Old and New Testaments. And then number two, that there is one people of God, no uh Church Israel distinction. Those are the the foundations, the co cornerstones on which infant baptism rests. Now there are other parts of that discussion, for example, within

the discussion of the covenant of grace, we obviously have the discussion of the covenant sign, circumcision and baptism, how does that relate? Well that's really a subset of the question of the covenant of grace and the the continuity between the testament. You also have the idea of how God deals with households.

Um it does he deal with households rather than individuals? And in the Old Testament does the same pattern hold in the New Testament? Well, that is an again a subset because the assumption is if there's one covenant of grace, in other words, one way that God deals with mankind, he would never change that.

Or he he um perhaps better stated, he he would uh he would keep the same pattern unless he specifically stated that he was not going to or unless he stated specifically I'm going to change that. Uh so that's that's a major assumption. And then within the subset which is linked with that, these two pillars are linked, the cornerstones are bound together. And that's that there's one people of God, no no distinction between the church and Israel, and that's because uh you have this

Because you have the unified covenant, you also have the same covenant community that exists throughout all ages. So that would be a mixed community of believers and unbelievers. and it would also be uh a mix of visible and invisible church. So for example, in the old covenant, the old church, they would call it, the church of the old testament, you would have uh

believers and unbelievers mixed together and um faithful and unfaithful, they're all in the same covenant together, being bound together by circumcision, and yet you have faithful and unfaithful together. And in And in that line of thinking, that same train of thought, that same church, um, sure it has it has been renewed and is in slightly different form, but it's the same church, same people.

Um and now they have uh adopted a new covenant sign, so all those who have been baptized are both saved and unsaved as well, mixed um together. because you have to have that continuity. The covenant of grace brings that brings that line and so too you have the people of God in continuity through the testaments. So those two elements are essential. And ultimately that becomes the foundational argument for making statements such as the church baptized

uh or the church um circumcised infants in the old testament, therefore, unless God tells us anything different, the church should include infants in the New Testament. That is a foundational uh part of their argument. Now in order to really understand this,

Um I wanna go through a little bit of the history of covenant theology, how it developed and what they taught, just because, you know, in in one sense I've summarized it there. But you could say, well, that's just your summary, you know, that people don't actually believe that or or maybe, you know, uh if you're if you're a part of the reformed camp, you might think to yourself, Well, I I could hold to a distinction between church and Israel or things like that.

And I just want to point out why this is essential to their argument. So just straight from the theologians themselves. So first of all, I r rely on Peter Lilbeck which uh is the president at Westminster Theological Seminary in his book Binding of God, he points out that Zwingli is the, you know, fountainhead of Covenant theology himself. So this is a covenant theologian talking about the history of Covenant Theology.

He says, quote, Calvin is not the initiator of covenant theology, since this honor must really fall to Zwingli. He is also not the designer of the first paradigm of covenant thought, since this distinction falls to Bullinger. And so he's his book is focusing a lot on Calvin and uh it's it's helpful even from you know hearing the historical analysis of a covenant theologian saying, Yeah, Calvin definitely contributed to Reformed thought and to covenant theology.

But really Zwingli was the one who who really systematized these things and he he i is the one where it all started. Um similarly, um in a book called German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, uh you have a guy named Birma who s who notes Since the pioneer research of von Korff early in the twentieth century, his historians of theology have almost without exception looked to the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli as the founder of Reformed Covenant theology.

So it's just I I give you those quotes because it is um not even just a dispensational talking point. This is, you know, the commonly accepted uh understanding that Zwingli was the one who prioritized Uh covenant theology began to systematize it. And it's also clear that this was partly as you go back to last episode and understand what was going on there. is that this is largely in response to the Anabaptist claim that baptism and faith ought to be linked.

So even I I mentioned Peter Lilbeck uh again, the president at Westminster Theological Seminary, he notes in his book Quote, it must be admitted then that the struggle with the Anabaptists did cause the Reformed to begin to use the covenant concept of unity of Old and New Testament to bolster their argument for infant baptism, end quote.

So even uh even Reformed uh historians acknowledge the fact that it was this debate with the Anabaptists which really caused this uh use of the covenant concept to try to unify the Old and New Testaments. because that was in the idea of the Reformed the best way that they could counter this idea from the Anabaptists.

So with that in mind then, let's think through how Zwingli pushed this idea of one covenant uniting scripture. Uh remember this is what becomes known as the covenant of grace in covenant theology. So Zwingli says this he states God therefore made no other covenant with the miserable race of man than that he had already conceived before man was formed. One and the same testament has always been in force. Now, yeah.

Again, I mean that's pretty clear. He says there's just one covenant, there's no other covenant, just one, just one covenant. Now again, I I'll take a note here to say even dispensationalists. It's talking about one specific covenant, um, one specific way of dealing with mankind um through covenant. And this is essential for the Pato-Baptist argument.

um in and of itself. That's that's why this has has come about and been formulated the way that it is, because this is in response uh in large part to the Anabaptist uprising. And so when you have of places like Hebrews eight, Second Corinthians three, Galatians four and five, which very distinctly talk about two different covenants and the not just the difference between them, but the betterness of one over the other.

Now, how how would Zwingli talk about that? Well, here's a quote. He says, Two covenants are spoken of, not that they are two diverse covenants, for this would necessitate not only two diverse people, but also two gods. So that's Zwingli saying, you know, just because Paul talks about two covenants doesn't mean that they're two in actuality, because that would mean then that there are two gods.

Now this is uh similar, just in case you say, well, maybe nobody believes what Zwing Zwingli believed, then. No, there is even in modern covenantal argumentation, Randy Booth in his chapter Covenant Transition, in the case for covenantal uh infant baptism, he says this.

He says, unity and continuity in his revelation. which is the Bible. Unity and continuity should be presumed over discontinuity. Now, he doesn't go as as strongly as Zwingli. Obviously the Reformers had their way of just stating things very strongly, but But what uh what's being said by Booth here is is that you have uh the character of God is at stake. So the assumption, the presupposition is that because of who God is,

he can only have one plan, which is, you know, clearly stated in scripture and uh we need to just um recognize that throughout the ages. But the issue is that it's not actually stated that way in scripture. It doesn't say that there's one covenant, one um overriding covenant that, you know, um works through

that way, but it's a presupposition that that this is we know who God is, this is his character, and so because God cannot lie, he's consistent in his character, then therefore the way that he works with the world always must be consistent. So it's a

It's a bit of a presupposition that God can't work in different ways throughout history. Um and I know uh there would be uh uh Reformed uh theologians who would acknowledge um that that God can work in different ways throughout history and that's that's a pretty obvious

um thing to them. But uh so I'm not trying to paint everyone with this brush, obviously, but I would say that the way Zwingli is talking about this here, the the foundation of this um is is basically in my my mind, a rather dangerous presupposition where um the idea of having two covenants would automatically mean like two gods because obviously God would have to be unified and

It's just it's just poor argumentation. But what's even more dangerous in my mind is what Zwingli says later. Uh Zwingli uh says Paul sp quote, Paul speaks of two testaments, but the one he calls a testament by the misuse of language. when he wishes them to be understood, who, although they were under one eternal covenant and testament, Paul therefore called the way of these a testament, not that it was a true testament, but by a copying or imitation of those who so named it.

Now, notice what Zwingli's saying here, and I I have no other way to interpret this. I'm happy to uh you know have other ideas of how this could be taken. But by saying that Paul is misusing language, it seems to me like he's saying Paul was wrong to call it another covenant because we know it was not another covenant. That seems to be what he's saying.

condescending to to others by calling this a new covenant or or a different covenant because we know that it would w there was only one covenant. So in other words It's a presupposition uh that there has to be just one covenant, therefore these other manifestations of it are, you know, by nature not another covenant.

So obviously Zwingli is less careful than than modern theologians, but again, a modern example of this reasoning can be found in Cornelius Venema's chapter in the in the same chapter the case for the covenant uh covenantal infant baptism.

And in his chapter entitled Covenant Theology and Baptism, one of the things that he notes is in his discussion of the covenant of grace, he says, however diverse and particular may be the various dispensations or administrations of the covenant of grace, So that they we may even speak of covenants, plural, in the um, and then he he cites Romans 9, 4 there, they do not differ as to substance.

So, in essence, what he's saying there is very similar, just with much more care than Zwingli, is he's saying, listen, it doesn't matter how different. or or or divergent the covenants of Scripture, it doesn't even matter that they're spoken of in the plural because we know that they're the same. They don't differ with regard to substance.

And I'm just gonna throw out there at this point, and we'll talk more about it at the end, it when we think about practicality, that if this is the standard of covenant theology, it's it's unfalsifiable because uh basically the assumption is that we know there's a covenant of grace. And we know that all these covenants are just manifestations of that, so much so that you can actually refer to them as a plurality of covenants, but we know that they're all the same.

I mean you can't disprove that, right? Because they're already saying, well, we know that the the variety in the covenants themselves um is just a happy variety, which just shows the unity. Uh, you know, I I don't I don't see how that can be a cogent argument at all. Um and sadly, I think um when we when we think about you know the covenant of grace, um I think it should be one of those things where okay, that is

Uh that is up for debate. Can we actually challenge that because it is such an integral part to the infant baptism debate? So we I I will um throughout how I think we can challenge that or think through whether or not there is a covenant of grace at at a different time.

But one of the things I want to go on to at this point is obviously if If the covenant is one throughout Old Testament and New Testament, then there would be a direct line of continuity on many issues. So this is why it's so important for covenant theologians as they're talking about infant baptism. Um so for example, Zwingli again, um this is just the natural flow of his theology as he's constructed it.

would be that the children of Christians are no less this is his quote here, the children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God who will forbid their baptism, circumcision among the ancients, so far as it was sacramental, was the same as baptism with us. As that was given to infants, so ought baptism with us, as that was given to infants, so ought baptism be to administered to infants.

Now this uh we will have a separate episode comparing circumcision and baptism, but it's just common language for uh Reform theologians to talk about uh how baptism has replaced circumcision, how there's that correspondence there. And I know some uh are less

less inclined to use the language of replacement, even though that is what uh is often utilized in the literature. And that's that's okay. The the issue though is why are we even having this discussion? And it's because it's assuming a unity of one covenant. uh which binds all the other uh covenants um under that rubric.

So when you naturally see the covenant of grace as holding the Old Testament and New Testament together, this would also naturally lead to viewing um one people of God throughout all time. So for example, Zwingli again. He says you They they are not then diverse or two churches, not two peoples.

They are indeed two in name, but unless they were made the same people in one spirit, they are not the people of God. So in other words, he's saying, you know, there's not two peoples, there's not Israel, not the church. There is he was Zwingli was definitely a supersessionist. Um the church had um completely uh encapsulated or taken over the role of Israel, so they had replaced Israel, and so there was this uh unity in the people of God, not two churches, they they are unified in that.

Now, we focused on Zwingli because he's really the beginning of the systematic argument, but lest I be accused of being unfair just focusing on Zwingli, maybe things have changed, maybe uh different people have uh formulated things differently.

I just want to show how this is pretty much standard throughout covenant literature. So for example, Calvin, we already mentioned him, he says the covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same.

Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation. So in other words, what Calvin is saying there is that the covenant in the Old Testament and the covenant in the New Testament are actually the same. They're the same covenant. That's that's his view. Uh in the catechisms.

we see clear testimony of this idea, um, as we have the Westmist Wes well Even uh the Westminster Confession of Faith and the larger catechism, um so Westminster Confession of Faith says in uh seven three, man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, side note here, they're talking about the covenant of work. So man proved himself incapable Uh picking up the quote, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace.

wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those who are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit. to make them willing and able to believe. So in other words, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, you actually have this second covenant, the covenant of grace, which is the overall encompassing covenant directing the plan of God.

You also have in the larger catechism uh mention of the fact that the grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, meaning after the covenant of works. In that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator and life and salvation by him. Then it goes on. So from the outset, the core of covenant theology, whether it be Zwingli, it could be uh Calvin uh and the confessions.

The the idea is that, and I only went through a couple uh confessions, we could go through many more, the idea is that there's only one covenant, the covenant of grace, which is manifested in a variety of ways. This view is obviously still prevalent among theologians today. For example, John Frame, who is Actually, I I really appreciate it a lot of what Frame does. I have his systematic theologies. I rely on them often. He he talks about the covenant of grace saying this.

Uh with regard to the other covenants. So in other words, the ones actually listed in scripture, Noahic, Abrahamic, etc., he says All these forms of the covenant of grace have similarities and differences with one another. The differences are obvious. For example, the rainbow is the sign of God's covenant with Noah, circumcision with Abraham, baptism with Jesus. Jesus is vastly greater than any earthly king, even greater than Moses, the great covenant m covenant mediator.

In some respects, however, these covenants are the same. They all have the same principle, God's desire to be our God and for us to be his people. They all speak of seed, land, and redemption. They all include law and grace, they all point to Jesus. So in other words, his statement there is that you know all these covenants which are specifically named in Scripture all basically are the same. They all fall under the same rubric. And

We'll talk more about that obviously. Now, obvious uh as I take like a note here, um And we could go through more modern uh covenant theologians. This is this is a very basic position. Um in a in a future episode we'll actually hit hit more of this, but I just am giving a survey of the land right now. And Uh because there's no positive evidence for scripture uh or for Petopaptism in Scripture and Yeah, I'm not being pejorative. What I mean by that is that there's no

there's there's no positive evidence. There's no list of uh of an infant being baptized. And I would say there's no positive evidence for baptizing a believer's children when he grows up either, right? There's there's just no positive evidence for those.

because there's no stories about that in scripture. Okay. So I'm not trying to be pejorative. I'm just saying because there's no positive evidence In Scripture for Pedobaptism, the covenant of grace is actually the foundational and most important argument for Pedo Baptism, at least according to the Reformed view. And so notice again I rely on Cornelius Venema, who's um the president at um Mid-American Reformed Seminary, and he says this.

This debate, talking about, obviously, infant baptism, can be reduced to one principle question. Does the covenant of grace and its New Testament administration embrace the children of believing parents? Just as it did in the Old Testament administration. However complex and diverse the arguments pro and con on the subject of infant baptism may be, this remains the overriding issue.

And he goes on and says precisely because the debate between Patobaptists and Baptists centers on the doctrine of the covenant of grace, particularly the similarity and dissimilarity of the covenant in its old and new Testament administrations it can hardly be resolved merely by appealing to specific biblical texts. End quote. So what he's actually admitting there. is that it's not uh it's it's a debate that you can't really have by appealing to biblical text.

Now, I would challenge that, but I'll tell you how I would challenge that in a second. But what he's essentially saying is he's presuming the covenant of grace in his statement. He's saying we know the covenant of grace exists. So the real question is how different is the uh is the dispensation or the administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testament? Uh um portion.

So notice uh you know, it's it's the question within the question is it's already assumed the covenant of grace is in existence. And so because the covenant of grace is there.

Uh how how should we think about the difference between the Old and New Testaments? Now, I I'll admit there are actually lots of uh Reformed Baptists who who are fine to argue that way. But one of the things that I'm um you know, going to argue for is that we should actually question whether or not there is something called the covenant of grace um that binds all these covenants together.

Now uh Perhaps a little less strongly, you have other modern uh covenant theologians like Randy Mo Randy Booth who says There are other evidences in the pages of Scripture that support the truth of infant baptism. Nevertheless, the foundational argument consists of the unified covenant of grace, evident in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. So in other words, again, uh Booth also, like uh Venoma, says that the covenant of grace is the foundational argument for this.

Now obviously the The implications of this, the assumption of the covenant of grace leads to uh famous quote like b or well, I guess you could say the theology that encapsul that is encapsulated by the quote of B. B. Warfield, um, who I believe was also known as the Lion of Princeton or something like that. Um he had the uh the famous response about what the debate was actually about. He says this.

Ah quote The argument in a nutshell is simply this God established his church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until he puts them out. He has nowhere put them out, they are still then members of his church and as such entitled to its ordinances. End quote. So notice just that's such a great summary of the argument and notice what is being assumed there is that there is one a unified plan of God under a unified covenant of grace.

Second of all, there is a unified people of God. So again The argument falls apart if you can prove that there is a distinction between the church and Israel, and if there is a there is actually distinctions in the covenants themselves. and that they are not meant to be viewed as one overarching covenant of grace. I mean, that really um would uh bring bring about some some consideration. So thinking through this now, well let's put it all together as we land the plane as it were.

So when we think about the traditional reform defense of Pedobaptism, it rests on these two certainties that there has to be a covenant of grace that unifies the Old and New Testaments, brings it into continuity. that there's also one people of God, no Israel Church distinction. So if either of these can be proven false, then the reformed position on Pedobaptism has a lot of difficulty standing. So I've mentioned that a couple times, but I want to explain specifically what I mean.

So on on the first part, if there's no covenant of grace, in other words, if the covenants of Scripture are distinct covenants, they can be interrelated, but yet they're unique, then the need for correspondence is done away with. In other words, uh the the main argument that's brought out in this is well God's God's covenant um included children in the past, therefore unless God says different, God uh wants to include children in that same covenant now.

Because there's just one covenant. There's just one way that God deals um with his people. And so if it can be shown, if there can be a way that we can we can talk about whether or not these covenants are actually distinct. Um if it can be shown that these covenants are distinct, then the overarching principle here that uh

uh these covenants should be viewed as a unified whole, that there that there are no distinctions. That's done away with, and then it's actually it becomes evident that God actually works in distinct, specific ways in different time periods. And so then you would have to positively make your case.

for infant baptism. You can't just say, well, in the past this is how it was, and we know that God's covenant remains in effect, so why would we expect any different? No, because we understand that there are there is a new um aspect here.

And then in the second uh realm, similarly, regarding the Church Israel distinction. If there is biblical evidence that Israel and the church are distinct entities, then there is from that for the church. They can they can have overlap to be sure, but if there is actually distinction between Israel and the church made in Scripture.

where there's a future for Israel, uh a kingdom for Israel, then we understand that there are distinct plans which would then you know, bring us back to the foundational point that that the covenant sign, which was linked with Israelite identity, would not need to correspond to the sign of the entrance into the church. In fact, it would be unlikely that it would, since Israel and the church are distinct.

Now I'm not saying again that that it that would be an impossible scenario where maybe there would be a direct correspondence. Um that that would be an argument though. We'd have to have that argument because the whole point would be that if you have two distinct entities, the church and Israel, you can't just assume then, like everyone would assume, that circumcision um is the r is being replaced by baptism. For example, just a couple quotes which illustrate that.

Um in the commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Zacharias Ursinius notes baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament and has the same value that circumcision had in the Old Testament. So notice the direct correspondence there.

And then we also have um Charles Hodge in his systematic theo theology, he says, quote, if children are to be deprived of a birthright which they have enjoyed ever since there was a church on earth, there must be some positive command for their exclusion or clearly s uh or some clearly revealed change in the conditions of membership which renders such exclusions necessary. So other words

Notice he's saying if the church in Israel are the same, we would expect there to be the same um conditions of membership. And so obviously then the assumption as he goes on in his systematic theology is to argue that uh baptism has replaced Circumcision Now What I I have to offer a disclaimer here because obviously plenty of Reformed Baptists um and others who would fall within that kind of camp.

uh view Israel and the church as the same. And there's also Reformed Baptists who hold to a covenant of grace, and yet they argue against Pato Baptism. And so I'm under no illusion that

that these are the only ways to argue for this. I'm just stating the obvious, or at least it seems obvious to me, is that if these pillars crumble, if these foundations, the the distinction between Israel and the church the absence of, you know, a covenant of grace, if these things are uh proven to be f uh falsified, if if they if we can falsify them, then it would seem that there is no foundation, at least from the traditional reformed approach and how they argue for paedo baptism.

that would um be done away with.

And so the foundation would be gone and we would we would um be in a better position then to just address things from a biblical uh standpoint, um arguing theologically and and going through the text. Now, this is this is what I would propose as as we go forward here and um think through think through these issues in coming episodes.

With regard to the covenant of grace, even though it's often assumed and usually painted as a unfalsifiable narrative, in other words, there's no way you can disprove it, and by the way, uh who would want to deny the fact that God works in um through history um with a with a overall plan and actually has uh a unity in that plan. Like that's not uh at least nobody that I know would would seriously challenge that.

But that's not the crux of the argument. The argument here is that there is a unification in all of the covenant. And that is something that needs to be testable. And so I would submit that we can actually look at Scripture and see if Scripture talks about a a multiplicity of covenants. So does Scripture talk about a unified covenant or does it talk about a multiplicity of covenants?

And how are those distinguished? And then also we could talk about how whether there are irreconcilable differences within the covenant.

So in other words, um differences within the covenants which demonstrate we are looking at different ways God is working in humanity. And I would say that there are definitely um major differences between the covenants. Uh in fact Yeah, I don't wanna h spoil everything, but kinda I wanna tease it a little bit is that I think that there are there are major differences between the new covenant and old covenant.

which are often ignored by the traditional reformed, which strongly indicate that there there is a major difference between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. And so I think that that would demonstrate, okay, God does work uh differently, and there is something special about these this covenant which um has uh done away with the other covenant, in fact, in in the words of the author of Hebrews.

And then with regard to the unified people of God, I would submit we can also examine Scripture to see if Scripture talks about church and Israel the same. Does it talk about how Israel uh has been um uh supplanted by the church or um we can even use fulfilled language. I'm fine with that. Has the church fulfilled Israel's role? Is that what we're looking at? Or is there indication in the biblical text that the church and Israel are distinct?

uh entities. And therefore we would assume that God does have a un unique plan for both. And therefore that would necessitate reevaluating our assumption that because Pedobaptism

Pedo baptism exists for the people of God in the Old Testament, therefore patism must uh exist in the New Testament. And I think And I know that's not exactly the the right terminology because obviously it's circumcision in the Old Testament, circumcision in the New Testament, but in the Reformed thinking that there's that correspondence, um, as we noted, and and I'll give you some more quotes when we actually talk about that in the future.

So I think it's really important to get the baptism debate working with texts of scripture. And I think that this is a healthy way to do that is to acknowledge, okay. This is the system that This is the framework. We've acknowledged where the pillars are, and if those if if this system is consistent with scripture, if it's if it's consistent with interpretation, so be it, let's let it stand. But if if we can, you know, challenge it through the use of scripture, then

Perhaps we need to reevaluate the system, and if the system itself is inferior, then we need to go back to addressing this issue in a different way. And so that's going to be our plan of attack here as we as we think through these issues. um is the next episode, Lord Willing, will look specifically at the covenant of grace and whether there's actually differences between the covenants and how we should address those issues.

So I hope it's helpful for you. I know it's a little long, but uh I think it's helpful to get a historical perspective of those things. and uh it can be fun in many ways to see what theologians prior to our time have said and uh contributed to the discussion as well. So if you want to reach out to me, you can always uh find my contact form on the website, petergaman.com. If you're interested in finding out more about the seminary, you can May the Lord bless you. and make his face shine upon you.