Considering Some Baptism Issues

Baptizing CavSon

Perhaps it is because I was preparing a SS class on the Sacraments and then Baptism that I noticed a few things regarding baptism.  One was encouraging, and the other was disappointing.

I used to read The Gospel-Driven Church all the time.  Then transition happened.  I’m trying to get back there more often.  Jared does some good work.  He recently relocated to Vermont of all places.  The congregation, the only evangelical congregation in town, has both paedobaptists and credobaptists in it.  By conviction Jared is credobaptist (believer’s baptism).  But he wanted to love those who had a covenantal view of infant baptism well.  He did not want them to be ostracized.  So they unveiled a new policy regarding baptism.  They will honor the infant baptism of people coming for membership (and already in membership) rather than require that they be baptized as adults.  One of the deacons, who is a paedobaptist, will baptize the infants of believers who desire it.

It is a good compromise instead of the common status as 2nd class citizens often experienced by those who have paedobaptist convictions.  I’ve seen it often, binding the conscience of others to get a seat at the table (voting rights, for instance).  Most conservative Reformed churches permit members to disagree with their position on baptism without any form of church discipline.  They will often limit them with regard to office, which makes sense.  This is just what John Piper has advocated at Bethlehem Baptist.

Yet, in his discussion, Jared brings up baby dedications.  I vacillated about leaving a comment.  I didn’t want to be seen as snarky or a trouble maker by a short quip.  I just see an interesting “hypocrisy”.  And I do use that term lightly since I really couldn’t think of a good term to use.  Okay, inconsistency is far less inflammatory.   I see an inconsistency.  Here’s what I mean:

Scripture includes commands (explicitly regarding circumcision) to place the covenant sign of entrance into the covenant community upon the children of believers.  This is undeniable.  What is debated is whether this practice should be continued in baptism.  Credobaptists reject infant baptism for lack of a clear command in the NT (forgetting, from my perspective the unity of Scripture as taught by Paul in 2 Timothy 3).  Yet, they willingly practice the use of baby dedications which have absolutely no warrant from Scripture.  There is only one example of a baby dedication.  This would be Samuel (in the Old Testament), and it was not commanded.  It was the fulfillment of a voluntary vow on the part of his mother.  I still don’t understand this- and it was the first step of my own reluctant process from devout credobaptist to paedobaptist.

Then I came across a blog post, I can’t remember where, denying any connection between circumcision and baptism.  I looked where I thought it was, but came up short.  I did find this old article about that (laden with bad logic and the inability to actually spell paedobaptist).

We were, in that SS class, studying the Westminster Confession of Faith.  In the section on the Sacraments it teaches that there is a connection between the signifier and the thing signified.  In other words, the sign is a picture of the spiritual reality to which it points.  This section also teaches that the OT and NT signs of the covenant signify the same thing.

This is where many who advocate believer’s baptism are lost.  They don’t see this, particularly in Colossians 2.  They don’t see the connection between the signifiers (circumcision & baptism) and the things signified (circumcision of the heart and baptism in the Spirit).  Nor do they see that they are the same thing.

Let’s work in Colossians 2 for a moment:

circumcision => circumcision of the heart (removal of the sinful nature)

baptism => baptism of the Spirit (removal of the sinful nature- see also Romans 6).

Scripture can confuse us if we don’t pay attention.  It often uses one to refer to both.  When speaking of baptism in the Spirit here, it implies water baptism.  They are distinct from one another but not separate from one another.  We distinguish them but don’t divide them (sorta like the hyopstatic union).

Paul’s argument in Colossians 2 is that what the Judaizers pushed the Gentiles to receive (circumcision which pointed to circumcision of the heart) was accomplished in their baptism of the Spirit (pointed to by their water baptism).  So, while it doesn’t say “baptism replaces circumcision” this text (and others) teach us that they represent the same things.

Thing Signified (WCF XXVII, 5)	Baptism	Circumcision
Regeneration	Titus 3:5-7	Romans 2:28-29
Entering covenant- for you & your children	Acts 2:38-39	Genesis 17:1-14
Death & resurrection- putting off old nature	Romans 6:3-7	Colossians 2:11-12
Citizenship in the True Israel	Ephesians 2:19; 4:4-6	Galatians 3:26-29
Good conscience- Heart Religion	1 Peter 3:21-22	Romans 2:28-29

We discover that covenant signs (sacraments) have both an objective and subjective meaning.  When we only see one, we fall into error.  If we think only of the objective, that faith is unnecessary, we find baptismal regeneration (whether at the hands of Rome or some “protestant” cults).  Where we neglect the objective, we focus on the faith and think it must be present to receive the sign of entrance to the covenant community.  In other words we ignore passages like Romans 4.

There Paul states that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, the seal of righteousness, or justification, by faith.  He received it after he believed.  But he placed it on his children who did not yet believe (and some never would).  Why would God do this, some say.  Will we submit ourselves to Scripture or do we place our reason above it?  Abraham is the father (in the faith) of all who believe whether they have been circumcised or not.   It was important to obey God to apply the sign, but the person who received it eventually had to believe in order to receive the benefits of the sign.

In light of 2 Timothy 3, I would argue that God does not have to instruct us further about how to apply the sign of the covenant.  He already did this in Genesis 17.  Without God revoking this instruction, why wouldn’t we continue it?  After all, aren’t both signs of regeneration and justification by faith?

All this is to illustrate that the person who sees no connection between circumcision and baptism is not really reading Scripture.  They are reading into it their own view and preconceptions.  They argue the grammar while neglecting the history (that whole grammatical-historical method thing) (reluctant thanks of Doug Wilson for that tidbit).

There is more to be said, but I wanted to go over the reasons why I shifted my views against my will, so to speak.  Anyone who knew me at seminary knew that I was a vocal advocate for credobaptism.  But eventually I saw that my presuppositions were unfounded, a product of 20th century individualism and subjectivity instead of a biblical worldview and the history behind the texts.