One of the reasons why baptism is such a difficult issue has
to do with the fact that there is a debate behind the debate. Often
baptism is discussed without a proper understanding of this debate
behind the debate. The issue of baptism is more about what is the
proper reading of the Scriptures than it is about which position
is biblical. There is a baptistic reading of the Scriptures and
there is a paedobaptistic reading of the Scriptures. As a result,
there is value in both sides understanding their position and in
both sides understanding the position that they reject.
I know what it is like to stand on both sides of the aisle. I
was raised a Baptist. As a result I know what it is like to think
as a Baptist. I can still remember thinking to myself, as a Baptist,
"How can anyone believe in infant baptism?" But now that I have
been on other side of the fence for some time, I will sometimes
think to myself as a paedobaptist, "How can anyone be a Baptist?"
No matter what side of the fence you stand on regarding baptism,
that particular side makes sense if that is all you know. I will
be the first one to admit that it is very difficult for a Baptist
to get their head inside the argument for infant baptism. I have
met very few, if any, Baptists that really understand the biblical
case for infant baptism. In fact, I can already hear their response: what biblical case? This attitude on the
part of many Baptists prevents them from even considering the possibility
that paedobaptism is biblical.
I have had many opportunities to discuss the issue of baptism
with people who hold a different view from my own. A number of these
men have been Baptist ministers. Over time, I have become familiar
with all the objections regarding infant baptism. In fact, there
was a time when I made many of the same objections. Many Baptists
fail to distinguish between a Roman Catholic view, a Lutheran view,
and a Reformed view of infant baptism. All paedobaptists are lumped
together. This is problematic because there are important distinctions
between the Roman view, the Lutheran View, and the Reformed view.
Judging by the objections that many Baptist critics make regarding
infant baptism, it is apparent that many of them do not understand
the Reformed paedobaptist position. At some level, most Baptists
argue against a straw man that they construct and then set ablaze.
Baptismal Regeneration
The Calvinistic view of infant baptism does not teach baptismal
regeneration. In agreement with my Baptist critics, I do not hold
this view. In agreement with my critics, I maintain a distinction
between the external sign and seal and the internal reality that
the external sign and seal symbolizes. In agreement with my critics,
I would also emphasize that salvation is by faith alone in Christ
alone. The work of regeneration is a work performed by the Spirit.
This work was depicted in the Old Testament through the external
sign and seal of circumcision.
Likewise, in the New Testament with the coming of Christ, this
work is depicted through the external sign and seal of water baptism.
Both circumcision and water baptism are external signs and seals
of covenant membership, and both depict the internal working of
the Spirit. It is not my desire to be polemical or offensive with
this next statement, but typically Baptists do not understand what
people like me mean when we speak of signs and seals. This is one
reason why it is difficult to discuss this issue with most Baptists.
It is very difficult to address an argument against a position when
the person arguing against the position does not understand what
he is arguing against.
Continuity in Scripture
The issue of infant baptism is determined more or less by a debate
behind the debate. Baptists read their Bibles differently than do
paedobaptists. Baptists generally emphasize the difference between
the Old Testament and the New Testament. They typically emphasize
the discontinuity between the old and the new. As a paedobaptist,
I recognize a level of discontinuity, but I am also much more comfortable
with the continuity that exists between the old and the new than
are our Baptist brothers.
Instead of seeing the Bible as essentially two books, Calvinists
read their Bibles as one book. It is my conviction that the Bible
is fundamentally one book about Jesus Christ. The Bible seeks to
demonstrate how Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of everything that
God has promised throughout redemptive history, from the beginning
to the end. From the first page to the last page, the Bible is about
Jesus Christ. Immediately after Adam fell into sin and God pronounced
the covenant curse, God also pronounced for the first time the promise
of redemption (Genesis 3:15).
Genesis 3:15 teaches that there are essentially two seeds. First,
there is the seed of Satan and, second, there is the seed of the
woman. The seed of the woman is a reference to Christ. He will come
from the woman (Mary) and, through Jesus Christ, Satan will receive
a mortal wound to his head. Christ will overcome Satan. In the process
of inflicting the fatal wound upon Satan, Christ will also receive a wound. He will, however, overcome
this wound as if it was only a wound to His heel. This verse serves
as a lens for understanding the unfolding of redemptive history.
In this verse, God has promised to bring salvation through the seed
of the woman. As we read our Bibles we look for the fulfillment
of this promise.
For example, in the conflict between David and Goliath, we see
the two seeds in conflict. Goliath, representing the seed of the
serpent, is physically impressive, but he is no match for a shepherd
boy who attacks Goliath on the basis that salvation comes from the
Lord. David was trusting in the Lord alone for his salvation. Is
the story of David and Goliath teaching us to be like David, or
is this story teaching us that salvation comes from the Lord Almighty?
The baptistic reading of this passage teaches us to be like David.
Dream big dreams; you can do anything that you set your mind to;
do not let your youth hinder you from accomplishing your goals.
Go out into the land and slaughter the giants. This is a very horizontal
reading of this text. It almost sounds like an ad for the Army.
The Reformed reading of this passage teaches us that salvation
comes from the Lord. God is the only one who can save man from the seed of the serpent. The impetus to be like David is a message
to trust in God as David trusted in God. David did not pull himself
up by his bootstraps and save Israel. No, he confronted Goliath
in the name of God.
When a Reformed Christian reads the Bible, he is sensitive to
the promises that God has made. Likewise we are equally as sensitive
to the way that these promises are fulfilled. As Calvinists, we
read the Bible from the perspective of promise and fulfillment.
"For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes"
in Christ. And so through Him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the
glory of God" (II Corinthians 1:20). When Paul made this statement
the New Testament had not yet been written. He was preaching Christ
from the Old Testament. All the promises that God has made in the
Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ. If we read the Old Testament
in the same way that the apostles understood the Old Testament,
then we should have no problem preaching Christ from the Old Testament..
The Covenants
The most basic promises of the Bible are expressed through the
various covenants that God made. Ultimately these promises are fulfilled in Christ. As a result, we interpret the Bible
and redemptive history through the lens of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ
is the fulfillment of all that God has been doing from Genesis through
Revelation. All of redemptive history points to Jesus Christ. Before
the fall, God made a covenant with Adam (In the day that you eat
of this fruit you shall surely die). Adam lived under a covenant
of works in the garden. If he had been perfectly obedient he would
have merited eternal life for himself and all his posterity, but
instead he brought about the fall and its consequences (curse) on
all his posterity.
In Romans 5:12-22 Paul teaches that Jesus is the second Adam.
Unlike the first Adam, Jesus is perfectly obedient. He has satisfied
the covenant curse in our place, and he has satisfied the righteous
demands of the law. This is an example of how the Bible interprets
the Bible from the perspective of promise and fulfillment. All that
God has promised is fulfilled in Christ. What the first Adam failed
to accomplish the second Adam, Jesus Christ, accomplished for everyone
that God has chosen.
Prior to the flood, God covenanted with Noah. Following the flood,
God made a more general covenant with creation. Next, God covenanted
with Abraham, then Moses, and David. Jesus came as the fulfillment
of all that God had promised in the Old Testament. This is how Jesus
interprets the Old Testament. In Luke 24 Jesus was on the road to
Emmaus. He was walking with Cleopas and another man. They were troubled and discouraged about
the recent death of Jesus. Consider Jesus' response to their concerns.
"He said to them, 'How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have
to suffer these things and then enter his glory?' And beginning
with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said
in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27, emphasis
added). Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the fulfillment of all the Old
Testament Scriptures.
In the same chapter, while Jesus was teaching His disciples,
He made a similar claim. "He said to them 'This is what I told you
while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is
written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures"
(Luke 24:44-45). Their minds were not opened until they understood
how Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
If this is the way that Jesus used the Old Testament when He
taught and preached, then maybe we should do the same. In harmony
with Jesus, I would argue that this is the way that we should read
and understand our Bible because this is the way that the Bible
interprets the Bible.
As a result, if you want to understand what the Bible teaches
about baptism or any other subject, you should begin your study
in the Old Testament. This represents a major difference between
Baptists and paedobaptists. If you begin the exegetical process
in the Old Testament from the perspective of promise and fulfillment,
then you will likely end up a paedobaptist. In contrast, if you
stress the newness of the new covenant to the point that the new
covenant is cut off from the covenants in the Old Testament, then
you will likely end up a Baptist. Fundamentally, this is the debate
behind the debate, or at least one important debate behind the debate.
A Starting Point
Related to this issue is the issue of our starting point. Baptists believe that unless the New Testament
explicitly commands believers to baptize their children, then baptism
should be withheld from their children. This position is based on
an assumption that should be scrutinized. Why is this assumption
solid ground? Maybe we should assume the opposite. This assumption
makes a lot of sense to some one who reads his Bible as a Baptist
with certain preconceived ideas. For example, Baptists are comfortable
beginning the exegetical process in the New Testament; they generally begin
by emphasizing the discontinuity between the Old and the New Testaments.
For this reason, it seems perfectly acceptable for a Baptist to
begin with the assumption that unless the New Testament commands
believers to baptize their children, then baptism should be withheld
from their children. But is this starting point really as solid
as the Baptist assumes? At this point I caution you, it is very
difficult to get a Baptist to examine their assumptions regarding
this starting point.
In contrast, if the Bible does not forbid believers from placing
the sign and seal of baptism upon their children, then why would
believers withhold the sign and seal of Baptism unless the New Testament
explicitly forbids such a practice? As a starting point, this position
assumes a level of continuity between the Old and New Testaments
instead of assuming radical discontinuity. If it is true that the
New Testament is silent on this matter, then why is the silence
of the New Testament in favor of withholding the sign and seal of
baptism when we already have an Old Testament precedent that establishes
the opposite? Why is it safer to assume discontinuity with the Old
Testament instead of assuming continuity?
The first converts to the Christian faith were Jews, and Jews
were certainly accustomed to applying the sign and seal of the covenant
to their children. Did Jewish converts assume a radical discontinuity
as do Baptists, or did Jewish converts assume a level of continuity?
The New Testament provides the answer to this question in many
different places. In the book of Hebrews, for example, the author
tries to convince Jewish converts to leave behind the types and
shadows associated the Mosaic Law. His argument is based on the
fact that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the types and shadows.
"The law has only a shadow of the good things that are coming
-- not
the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same
sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those
who draw near to worship" (Hebrews 10:1). They do not need a priest
after Aaron, because they have Jesus as their High priest. The sacrifice
that Jesus offers takes away their sins, and it never has to be
repeated again.
According to the writings of Paul, there was an impulse among
Jewish converts to impose circumcision on gentile converts. There
was reluctance among Jewish converts to leave behind the types and
shadows of the Old Testament. In the book of Galatians the apostle
Paul publicly confronts Barnabas for falling into this trap. In
light of this Biblical evidence I find it extremely unlikely that
Jewish converts would have held the same assumptions as a modern
day Baptist. To this day I have never heard a good response to this
objection from a Baptist theologian. Is it really possible that
Jewish converts would have withheld the sign and seal of covenant
membership from their children without explicit New Testament instructions
to do so? From the time of Abraham Jews had applied the sign and seal of the covenant to their children.
Conclusion
If it is true that baptism in the New Testament has replaced
circumcision as a sign and seal of covenant membership, then how
is it possible that Jewish converts would have withheld the sign
and seal of covenant membership from their children without explicit
apostolic instructions to do so?
Rev. Mark J. Stromberg is the pastor of the United Reformed Church of Belgrade, Montana.
