In his book Children at the Lord’s Table?, Cornelius Venema includes an appendix on the issue of baptism. This appendix, he notes, is his chapter in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge. This is an interesting irony since Gregg is one of the people mentioned who advocates for infant communion in the PCA.
“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.” B.B. Warfield
Venema rightly goes after the presuppositions that operate in this discussion. The case is not won on the basis of proof-texts because each side brings different presuppositions regarding the nature of the covenant of grace in its varying administrations. This appendix is here because Venema also sees this problem as the basis for the infant communion debate. He uses the appendix to spend more time explaining the proper relationship between the various administrations of the covenant of grace.
Venema admits both sides have arguments from silence. Just as there is no statement explicitly keeping children in the covenant community (no command to baptize them), there is no statement explicitly removing them from the covenant community. If there was, the would have been a serious battle in the church shortly after Pentecost. We don’t see this. Rather, we do see, from the beginning, the repetition of the phrase “this promise is for you and your children”. Peter continues to expand it to the Gentiles. Peter is speaking the language of Genesis 12, 15 & 17 in the context of the sign of initiation into the covenant community (just like Genesis 17). But, I get ahead of myself.
Venema builds the case from Scripture, Calvin and the Westminster Confession (and Catechisms) for one covenant in substance though there is some diversity in administration. He argues for both the unconditionality and conditionality of the covenant (no, not violating the Law of Non-Contradiction since it is not in the same sense). The covenant is unconditional when viewed from above. God ensures the efficacy of the covenant without any met conditions on our part. He graciously grants us all that He demands of us in the covenant. There is no merit on our part.
But there is conditionality in that it depends upon the work of Christ. Grace is contingent upon His meritorious works (active and passive) on our behalf. The covenant also calls us to faith, repentance and obedience. We have covenant privileges and responsibilities. Faith and repentance pertain to our justification (instrumental means) while obedience pertains to our sanctification (evidence thereof).
“In the Old and New Testaments, members of the covenant community are warned against the danger of unbelief and impenitence.”
Just as the covenant community was comprised of elect and non-elect in the Old Testament, we see through the various warnings and examples of the New Testament that the same is true. Hebrews in particular reminds its Jewish audience that the wilderness generation had the good news preached to them. The message in both covenant was the same (which is why Abraham looked upon Jesus’ day with joy), though with the progress of revelation we have a clearer picture of the gospel. Abraham received the gospel (Galatians 3:8). This should strip us of the illusion that the New Covenant is fundamentally different. It has covenant breakers too! There were non-elect people in the community too!
Venema then draws upon the sacramental theology of the WCF again to show that the sacraments are not “badges of faith” but signs of the covenant. They portray Christ and his benefits, not our faith. Christ and his benefits are received by faith. The signs don’t mean the person is regenerate or saved. In Romans 4 we see that circumcision was a sign of justification by faith alone. Additionally, circumcision pointed to the circumcision of the heart which was promised to them and their children (Deut. 10:16; 30:6 Jer. 4:4). It is a sign of regeneration and repentance: God’s work and our response in the putting off of the sinful nature. This spiritual circumcision takes place in our union with Christ, which is portrayed now by baptism (Col. 2:10-12).
Paul argues in 2 Corinthians 1 that all God’s promises are ‘yes’ in Christ Jesus. Does this include the fact that the promises are “to you and your children?” Is the New Covenant more restrictive in this case? Or, as we see in Acts 2, more expansive since now the Gentiles are brought in? Do our presuppositions cause us to read the text in isolation from the Old Testament or in light of the Old Testament? Here is where the issue ultimately lies, and we do one another a dis-service when we avoid this. We talk past each other. Venema, like Ferguson, gets to the heart of the issue in his argument for covenantal infant baptism.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply