A Final word on Infant Baptism

Two sobering truths about infant baptism demonstrate that the doctrine is derived not from exegetical proofs but rather a faulty theological scheme. This post will serve as a summary to my very discursive interaction with paedobaptism and specifically, Paul Manata’s argument in favor of that doctrine. The first is a logical syllogism from New Testament evidence and the second is from the first 200 years of church history.

1      Every article of church polity, worship, conduct, doctrine, discipline and activity are all clearly contained within the confines of the New Testament.

2      Infant baptism is not clearly contained within the confines of the New Testament.

3      Therefore, infant baptism is not an article of church polity, worship, conduct, doctrine, discipline and activity.

The first premise is very simple. This premise is not asserting that no church has ever instituted policies or worship practices, etc. that have no support in the New Testament. What it is claiming is that these elements have their authority from the clear teachings and principles of New Testament Scripture. When we look for polity of elders and deacons, we see it in Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 as well as other places. We can read about how the church worshiped in Acts and Ephesians as well as other places. We know that Christian conduct and doctrine must have their only source in New Testament Scripture. We also see that Christian activities and even discipline are spelled out in black and white in the New Testament Scripture. The New Testament Church is indeed a New Testament Church. And members of the New Covenant are members in the New Testament Church.

There is no connection, not a single shred of connection between New Covenant baptism and Old Covenant circumcision. The circumcision of the flesh was a type of the New Covenant circumcision of the heart. In other words, physical circumcision was the type while regeneration is the antitype. There is no proof anywhere in the New Testament that baptism and circumcision are related. We have been circumcised by a circumcision made without hands. (Col. 2:11) The opportunities for God to reveal such a basic element of Christian doctrine abound throughout the New Testament. God had no reservations about revealing to us all the other aspects of basic Christian doctrine, like baptism, faith and repentance, regeneration, Christian duty, worship, prayer, etc. Jesus could have said something about this doctrine but He did not. Luke, in recording the history of the ancient church had almost endless opportunity but said nothing about it. Paul, Peter, and John had enough space to include this doctrine but nowhere bothered themselves with it. The writer to the Hebrews most certainly could have made the connection but ignored it completely. One has to ask if it makes sense to permit such silence on something as basic as our paedobaptist brothers consider it to be in the life of the church. At a minimum we have to admit that it is indeed puzzling that something so basic would be accompanied, not by scant evidence, but rather by absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Historically speaking, there is no evidence from the first two-hundred years in the church that infant baptism was ever practiced. For the time before this (200 AD) we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism. (Aland, 101) So then what is the historical basis for infant baptism in the Christian Church? Contrary to our paedobaptist brothers’ connection to the covenant, when the Christian Church first began to baptize infants, it was due to the issue of original sin. The struggle with infant baptism in the early church was related to the doctrine of original sin. We see the remarks by Tertullian, “Why should innocent infancy be in such a hurry to come to the forgiveness of sins?” Tertullian associated baptism with cleansing and forgiveness of sins. Origen, although he accepted the view that infant baptism was of apostolic origin, struggled to understand why an infant would require forgiveness and pardon of sins. Origen then connected baptism with pardon and forgiveness of sins. Cyprian was the first to connect infant baptism to original sin. There was a practice in come churches to wait until the 8^th day to baptize the infant. But Cyprian argued that if the worse of sinners ought to be baptized immediately, receiving pardon and forgiveness of sins, why then should we withhold such grace from a newly born infant? Augustin followed both Ambrose in his view on original sin and Cyprian in his logic on baptism.

The earliest available evidence from the ancient church is clear. When infant baptism was introduced to the church, whenever that was, it was done so as a result of the logical inference of original sin. The argument was not made from the Old Covenant pattern of circumcision even if a loose connection from a religious rite may have been present somewhere in their thinking. The thrust of the belief supporting infant baptism was inferred from the belief in the doctrine of original sin. If all Adams progeny is wholly contaminated from the womb, then infants are in need or pardon from birth. And if baptism provide for pardon and forgiveness of sins, then infants ought to be baptized. Augustine referred to infants as being in the clutches of the devil because they were born contaminated with the sin of Adam.

These facts pose a serious problem for a paedobaptist brothers. If they are going to call on evidence from the ancient church, a few generations removed from the apostles, then they will have to accept the justification for the practice of infant baptism from that ancient church as well. One cannot use the historical evidence that the church baptized infants in the third century unless one also uses the same argument in support of that practice. Do paedobaptists argue that baptism provides for pardon and forgiveness of sin? Indeed, they do not. Their argument for the legitimacy of infant baptism is fundamentally different from that of the ancient church. For that reason, we can reject the paedobaptist claim that church history supports their practice. Indeed, church history is in clear dispute with their practice. Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine would all disagree with the reasons offered by the reformed paedobaptists for their doctrine of infant baptism.

In summary then, we have seen that a survey of the New Testament shows no clear evidence that infant baptism ought to be included in the polity, doctrine, or worship practice of the catholic church. If it is true that Christian polity, doctrine, and practice ought to have clear support in the New Testament or ought to be so clearly derived from principles of clear doctrine, then we have no choice but to admit that infant baptism is lacking in that support. We have also seen the that the first evidence of infant baptism in the history of the church in the extant records shows that the practice was built upon an argument that took on a fundamentally different structure. Like the New Testament teaching on the relationship between baptism and true repentance, the practice of infant baptism seemed to emerge as a product of an attempt to ensure the salvation of infants. If this is not baptismal regeneration, it is only a step removed. In light of these two very basic and simple observations, I think it is more safe to reject the doctrine of infant baptism. I think of the principle that the more obscure a doctrine, the less likely it is to be true, or useful to the spiritual growth and well-being of the Church. For this reason, it seems prudent to me to reject the claims of Paul Manata and our paedobaptist brothers. We simply must demand that something so basic and so imposed upon the lives of believers as infant baptism must be accompanied with the strongest and clearest support of New Testament Scripture which is the only guide for the Church and it is also our only guide for how we should approach the rest of Scripture, meaning, the Old Testament. In other words, the New Testament is the grid through which everything else must be interpreted because it is the clearest and final revelation from God.

Answering Paul Manata's Objections (continued)

Answering More Paul Manata’s Objections

Manata offers the following rebuttal:

4) It doesn’t seem that the New Testament writers understood Jeremiah’s prophecy to be saying that only regenerate people are in the New Covenant. This is simply seen in the apostasy passages. The New Testament writers seem to imply that one can apostatize from the New Covenant. Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily encourage one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is 18 why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following statements: Col. 1:23–”if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,” 1 Cor. 15:2–”by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–”and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–”we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–”if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–”the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–”if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–”if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–”in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–”holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–”faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Some baptists say that these are merely a “means” God uses to keep his elect in the covenant. Well, this is not the universal position because reformed baptists like Roger Nicole, and Wayne Grudem, among others, disagree with it. But, even if these passages are a means of perseverance for the elect, and thus hypothetical warnings for them, since it is read to the entire church, and since there are some non-elect in these churches, what purpose do these warnings serve for them? Indeed, even though non-elect cannot repent and believe the gospel, the gospel call is still a sincere and well-meant offer for them. Are these warnings real warnings for everyone they are read to? Furthermore, why would we take these warnings seriously if we viewed ourselves as regenerate? Since it is impossible for a regenerate to apostatize, why should he take the warnings seriously? I mean, since it is possible that fire could shoot out of our eyes, how serious would we take someone who told us to watch out (!) and make sure we didn’t burn our house down? How much less serious should we take a warning about something that is impossible for us to do? We wouldn’t take serious a warning sign in the middle of the Sahara Dessert, which read “Keep off the Grass!” would we?

Is Manata denying the security of the believer? Is he denying the perseverance of the saints? Is he advocating covenantal nomism, aka, Federal Vision? Do we enter the Covenant of Grace by grace alone only to have our continuation in that Covenant conditioned upon law-keeping? Or is Manata just another inconsistent Paedobaptist? I hope it is the latter and not the former. It should not escape your notice that not a single passage that Manata quotes actually asserts what he says they do. To remind the reader, John said they went from us because they were never really of us. The writers to the Hebrews informs us that the death of Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Jesus said He will not lose even one of His sheep. If the being in the audience ipso fact means that you can actually commit apostasy, then no one’s salvation is actually secure.

The NT was written to believers, members in the New Covenant. Since this language was directed to those with genuine faith, and Manata believes the warnings should be taken in a wooden, literal manner without consulting other clear texts of Scripture, we are left with Pelagianism or with a contradictory Scripture. Neither of these are acceptable. The gospel of Jesus Christ is to be proclaimed to everyone even though God’s elect was forever settled from eternity past. We take the warnings seriously because they come from the pen of the Holy Spirit. We understand we are responsible for how we conduct our lives. Additionally, Manata should recognize that the writings of the NT were to the Church. It is the Church that is the pillar and support of the truth. The preaching of the gospel goes in precisely the opposite direction. It is a general call to repent and believe sent out to all. The writings of the New Testament are directed specifically to the Church, those who believe. Is Manata actually suggesting that the NT writers had unbelievers, false converts in mind when they penned the letters? The letters were address to the Church, to those who were called by God, chosen from the beginning for salvation to eternal life in Christ. The salutations clearly indicate this fact. Ephesus calls the recipients saints, the faithful ones in Christ. Romans says they are called as saints, beloved of God. Corinthians calls refers to them as those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus. I could go on and on. It seems clear to me that Manata’s rebuttal in this instance is not the product of sound exegesis, but rather the product of his own theological scheme.

Interacting with Paul Manata’s Why I am not a Baptist (again)

In this post I will continue my interaction with Manata on the subject of a mixed community in the New Covenant. Manata writes, The EP, as presented in the New Testament, provides extremely strong support for a continued external dimension to the New Covenant community. Only in the new heavens and earth will the covenant community be a pure, unmixed community. Here I think Manata presents his weakest argument. The exclusion principle is not unique to the Ancient Hebrews. The practice was commonplace in the Mediterranean world. Second, to be excluded from a local fellowship does not imply one is a bona fide member of the New Covenant. Nowhere in the NT do the writers ever imply that there are two components of the New Covenant. John’s words serve as an excellent reason for us to reject this idea immediately.

If we are to accept Manata’s argument that the New Covenant will not be written on the hearts of all those who are members in it, we run into a number of problems. On the one hand, is the New Covenant made with all of Israel and Judah? If it is as like the Old Covenant as Manata suggests, then we must admit that national Israel is a member of the New Covenant. But I don’t think Manata would go that far. After all, what is the basis for membership in the New Covenant? Moreover, what are the benefits of being in the New Covenant. Is there any material difference between the Muslim and the Jew in terms of being under the wrath and disfavor of God for their rejection of Jesus Christ? I would think not. At best, this sort of understanding of the New Covenant reduces membership in it to a meaningless status. Manata cannot have it both ways.

The New Covenant is expressly identified by Jeremiah as that activity of God where He writes His law on the hearts of the covenant members, the elect, true Israel. Those who are in the New Covenant have God as their God and they are God’s people. They will not need to teach each other how to know God because all the members in the New Covenant will know God. Jesus quotes this passage in John 6 in the context of all those that are His. Jesus says that everyone who is taught of God, something Jeremiah reserves for the recipients of the New Covenant, will come to Him. The idea that one could be a member in the New Covenant and not come to Christ is simply not true. John echoes Jeremiah’s words twice more when he informs his church that they have an anointing from the Holy One and do not need a teacher. Why? Because they have been taught of God just as Jeremiah said the New Covenant members would be and Jesus Himself interpreted Jeremiah this way as well.

Romans 9-11 provides excellent material to understand membership in the New Covenant. It is those elect Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Christ. The Gentiles have been grafted into the Covenant by faith in Christ. Unbelief excludes people from the covenant regardless of race, gender, social status, or relations. Only faith in Christ results in membership in the New Covenant community. This is clear when Paul says, “And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” (Rom. 11:23)

The writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, a better covenant. What Christ mediates is efficacious. He offers up for members of the Covenant a better sacrifice. Would Manata say that Christ is the actual mediator for the non-elect? Does Christ offer up sacrifice for those who actually reject Him, those who are not His sheep? The writer goes on to say that the blood of Christ is efficacious, being offered through the eternal Spirit, to cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb. 9:14) This is the mediator of the New Covenant mediating for members in that covenant. The writer then says, “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. (9:16) Is Manata claiming that Christ’s death included those who were not elect? It is only those who have been called that will receive the promise of the New Covenant. (v. 15) This accords perfectly with Jeremiah 31, John 6, Romans 9-11, and 1 John 2. The New Covenant is established in the blood sacrifice of Christ. This sacrifice takes away the Old Covenant in order to establish the New. (Heb. 10:9) It is by this sacrifice that the members in the New Covenant have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:10) It is by this offering that He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (10:14) It is here that the writer to the Hebrews references Jeremiah 31:33. The writer of the Hebrews connects those who have been sanctified, perfected, washed in the blood of Christ and cleansed with the same ones that Jeremiah describes as having God’s laws put upon their hearts and their minds. It is the same audience. These are the objects of the New Covenant arrangement. This is why Paul says that (we) New Covenant members are not of those who endure for a while but then withdrawal to perdition. (Heb. 10:39) These are those who were never really of us. The parable of the sower presents this clearly. The good soil, the New Covenant members, Christ’s sheep, those whom God has actually called, are the members of the New Covenant, in the body of Christ, the Church, in Christ by faith and they will endure to the end. The ones that withdrawal were never really of us.

If the writer to the Hebrews is correct, then members in the New Covenant have been perfected forever, having been sanctified by the blood of Christ once and for all. This sacrifice has created a mixed, but entirely pure community. Mixed in that she is ethnically diverse but one in that she is spiritually pure, sanctified, justified by the one eternal sacrifice of Christ her mediator. The writer of the Hebrews does not use language that implies that the New Covenant is yet to be enacted. The New Covenant has been fully enacted. Christ said it is finished, not it has begun. We are living in the New Covenant arrangement today and the purity of our communities is of utmost importance if we are to be the light we are called to be. This is why church discipline is so critically important. It is why Paul insisted that the Corinthian man be removed immediately. We are not a community of moral and immoral people. Even though wolves are around us along with the hypocrites, they are not of us. They are not in our community. They are not members of the covenant because only God can make someone a member of the covenant.