See the first post in this series:
Paedocommunion? A Simple Experiment to Test Your Views
Giusto de’ menabuoi, Adam and Eve, 1376-78
ONCE UPON A TIME GOD TOUCHED SOME BABIES
…who had been brought into his very throne room, into the heart of his holy space – and they – those nursing babes, were sat on God’s lap.
Now God’s holy space has bouncers, deacons, arrow-invested warriors who wait at the breach of the tabernacle and all around to keep the false from coming into the room. These cherubim, as they are sometimes called, are gatekeepers. The flaming sword turning each way to keep the unworthy out.
One cherub said to another, I think someone got into the holy place, someone who was uninvited. Let us guard the holiness of the Lord!
So the cherubim rebuked the intruding babies, and actually, that meant telling off their parents, because the nursing babies, even infants, could not do but what their believing Jewish parents made them do.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN GOD WHEN HE’S ANGRY?
Sometimes he floods the place. Sometimes he rains sulfur. Sometimes he spews his blasphemous people out into Babylon. By the way, don’t forget to remind me what he almost did to Moses one time and why! Oh, but that can wait.
Back to keeping the covenant children from the presence of the Lord. This time the Lord was furious! It was no small matter. The infants (Luke 18.15) whom they had brought him were exemplars of the purest kind of faith – the kind of faith the grownups would need to imitate. Recumbent trust – reclining at breast – carried in womb – resting in the arms of the Lord (Mark 10.16).
“Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” (Ps 22.9-10)
“For you, O Lord, are my hope,
my trust, O Lord, from my youth.
6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.
My praise is continually of you.” (Ps 71.5-6)
Some might say that these children were models for an illustration, but other than that they were just children, since of course children cannot have faith, they say. Indeed, they were just models of a kind of faith that grown men should have. But to say such is to miss exactly what kind of faith is illustrated, and exactly what kind of faith is described of all Israel normatively in the Psalms. Baby-faith. Infant-faith. Passive-faith. Leaning. Trusting by gravity and arms below you. Being a child of a parent through no choice of your own. Humble.
Now there’s nothing wrong with finding all the proper baby-like qualities that we could use for the description of saving faith – but Jesus doesn’t leave it there. They were important not just for what they illustrated; they were important as worthy entrants into his arms, and so the Lord of heaven and earth was indignant (Mark 10.14). But not because the disciples had screwed up his illustration.
“Come on, don’t you guys sense when I am setting up a really good teaching moment?! I wish you hadn’t sent my props away…” is NOT what Jesus said.
The King was receiving subjects. The Lord was receiving his people, small though they were. And yet, these cherubic guardians had struggled to keep out the ones who belonged in.
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven,” (Matt 19.14).
The Kingdom is owned by some such infants!
Two very important questions now:
- What does Jesus ascribe to these children?
- And should we describe all infants in the same way?
Before I answer these questions, let me give you a link to the passages: (Matt 19.13-15, Mark 10.13-16, Luke 18.15-17). Or see the passages as three full chapters (Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 18)
IS HE SAYING THESE BABIES ARE SAVED?
Yes, he is.
The kingdom is theirs (Matt 19.14). Is there some possibility that this means something outward, and not really salvation? Or does it really mean like…protestantly defined soul-saving salvation as we think of it in Sunday School for people who have come to the Lord? The surrounding passages say yes – these are saved babies. See:
In the next verse following this passage in Matthew we find the rich young man . See 19.16: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”” Listen to how this salvation is alternately described throughout that passage:
- In 19.16 it is “having eternal life.”
- In 19.17 it is “entering life.”
- In 19.23 it is “entering the kingdom of heaven.”
- In 19.24 it is “entering the kingdom of God.”
- In 19.25 it is “being saved.”
- In 19.29 it is “inheriting eternal life.”
The rich young man is a foil to the helpless young covenant babies.That is, he illustrates the opposite, the inability of faith. He was rich and had a monkey’s paw stuck in a cookie jar. He wouldn’t let go of his riches and be free. He wasn’t like a recumbent baby, happy just to be on Daddy’s lap.
In the story of the young man, a story that we have already noted as a connected foil, we also see identity between receiving eternal life,” “entering the kingdom,” and “being saved.” Since the stories are connected thematically and flow one to another, it is safe to assume we are talking about the same thing, when the same words come up.
Salvation here has the basic motifs of “going into a kingdom, as a citizen,” and “inheriting, as a son” which is inherently a familial reception. And Jesus lays hands on the babies, in the method of conferring the blessing of inheritance. See Jacob and Esau. See Ephraim and Manasseh.
Jacob Blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, Benjamin West, c. 1768
Jesus says the babies are kingdom members, which in context means owners of eternal life. Jesus shows it by his laying on of hands, as it were, ordaining them publicly to their inheritance. And Jesus marks it in the memories of the people who would preach the kingdom outward for him, his disciples, by chewing them out for getting in the way of his little rightful rulers, little princes and princesses come to see the throne-room without fear, because they belong in the family line of the King.
These two stories are tied together in all three synoptic gospels, so the analysis holds in all three places as well.
WELL MAYBE THEY WEREN’T REALLY BABIES?
That’s a good question. Maybe they were youngsters, and maybe their going to Jesus was a good enough sign of maturity, a sign that they understood? Forgive the straw man – this is a sincere and real question that I myself asked years ago when trying to know what to think about this passage. So it was not a straw man then. But here’s the answer. Luke 18 says explicitly, “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them,” (Luke 18.15).
As if “infant” or “nursing babe” isn’t strong enough, it is intensified by “even.” These people were coming to be touched. They were bringing children to him also, they were also at the bottom rung, “even” bringing him infants.
In every case, these children are said to be brought to Jesus. And since we know that some are even infants, we cannot take, “let the children COME to me” as a statement requiring the children to be walking, self-examining children.
WELL MAYBE THAT’S JUST THE STATE OF ALL BABIES?
If you were an Israelite, used to the Psalms, you would assume that children born to the covenant would be able to say “from my mother’s womb you have been my God,” at the same time as saying that such a relationship was from faith: “you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts,” (Ps 22.9-10).
But you would also be familiar with David’s other claim, that babies are sinners from the womb. Even saved babies are sinners from the womb: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps 51.5), a reference to David’s own sinful state, not that of his mother, (See Ps 51.3-6). David says in Psalm 22 that he was filled with faith, and in Psalm 51, he says he was naturally a sinner. And both are true from the womb. If a believer is naturally a sinner, then how much more a non-believer.
What about the wicked? David says in Psalm 58.3: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” Psalm 58 is written in a chiasma The chiastic pair for the above verse is: “Let…[the wicked]…be like the stillborn child….” Their spiritual state is said to be like a dead child, and they are said to have come forth estranged and in iniquity.
SO IF THE KINGDOM BELONGS TO SOME
It doesn’t apply to all. But the audience hearing and bringing to Jesus were themselves believers. And because of that Jesus accepts their children.
HOW COULD SINNERS BE SAVED?
We have already heard that even believing infants are sinners. But we have also heard the believing infant in Israel is confessionally expected to have a resting and reclining hope and trust in their God. Between the Psalms 51, and 58, and 22, and 71, we have a very normal picture that all people are sinners, and that God will save those who trust him. The Psalmist says these infants have a kind of faith. Of course, otherwise, the kingdom could not belong to them.
All people are sinners, and through one man’s sin condemnation went to all people (Romans 5.18). And we are told that salvation must be granted through faith. (Eph 2.8, Heb 11.6) Then, since these babies own the kingdom, and have entered into life, and are heirs of eternal life, and have been saved, then they too must have some kind of faith. But that is simple to expect, because their kind of faith is not far off, and it is not too hard, and it is the model kind of faith. The kind of faith that trusts and leans. The kind of faith that teaches disciples how to be in God’s presence: by trusting. In fact, the babies were the true cherubim, the gatekeepers watching out lest false disciples enter in!
So we know that it is normal to expect children in the church to have access to the kingdom, and the Psalms we confess tell us how – by God’s supernatural work of giving trust in the womb, a work which takes those conceived in sin, and says they will be God’s from the womb, and will not be astray. They are saved from sin, and no one is saved without some kinda faith or a nuther.
MOSES AND GOD’S WRATH
Oh, I did say to remind me about Moses, didn’t I? Very good. This fits in so well to the whole discussion, because it relates to our expectation of what God wants from us about our children, and it relates to circumcision, and therefore to baptism.
Well do you remember the story? Moses was on his way…OH, Look at the time! I guess we’ll have to just take this up next time you drop by.
Jesus trusted God as a baby once, too!
Nativity, Georges de la Tour
—
Luke Welch has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>
- A chiasm is a reflection. That means the parts of the Psalm are written in pairs that match from beginning to end, like this: A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A. (back)
[…] Part 2: Paedocommunion? – Saved by Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther […]
Luke, non-Christian babies trust at their mother’s breast, too. There’s no difference. David is merely saying that God had his entire life planned from the beginning. He’s not saying that babies can be priests and eat the sacrifices, or pass through the Laver. It doesn’t work.
Paul says the same thing in Galatians 1:15-16:
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles…”
When was Paul baptized? When did Paul partake of communion? Not when he was separated from the womb. Not when he was circumcised. He was baptized after he believed and was commissioned to preach to the nations. He followed exactly the pattern set by Jesus. We mess with it (with crazy constructs built on illogical leaps as above) at our peril. And if we insist on relying on historical traditions to bolster our errant practice, we are behaving like Paul before his conversion – glorying in the flesh.
Nice painting though. Amazingly modern-looking.
Yeah–I’m with Mike here. This post has way more to do with baby-baptizing than it does with
paedocommunion per se. To much to unpack, but from my perspective this is an example of a hermeneutic that, instead of interpreting the Old with the New, is reading the Old INTO the New and making the application from the Old Covenant. In a weird way it’s functioning a bit like the Arminian view of prevenient grace: where prevenient grace in essence neutralizes passages like Romans 8:7-8, this particular view in essence neutralizes those passages that define all “in Adam”.
That should read “too much to unpack…”
Mike, Psalm 22:10 says from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Is that true of all people everywhere who have ever been born?
Going back to the Psalms. The word the Holy Spirit uses in 22:9 is batach, which means to trust. Here are a few other uses in the Psalms: 9:10, 21:7, 22:4-5, 25:2, 26:1, 28:7, 32:10, 37:3, 40:3, 55:23, 56:4, 11. In all of these verses the word “trust” means to believe in Yahweh as the one who saves and delivers. I am not sure why it would mean anything different in Psalm 22:9. One point of Psalm 22 is that David (and ultimately Christ) put their trust in God as their Father to rescue them when they are in distress and surrounded by their enemies and he does rescue them.
Mike, the context of the Psalms cited is babies trusting God at their mother’s breasts, not just having trust in their moms or trust in general. That cannot be said of unbelievers. The point is infant or, better yet, household inclusion. And that point is certainly not some brick bolstered only by Church history. It’s biblical, through and through. And, on the contrary, infants and young children did take part in the Passover (though later only adult males were required to) and other peace offerings (Passover was in the category of the peace offering).
What Paul says in Galatians entails God’s predestining him for ministry, but David says more than just “You had my life mapped out from the beginning.” And after Paul entered the kingdom of the new age in Christ through the one baptism of water and the Spirit, certainly he obeyed his Lord and brought the infants of believers into that same kingdom of that same Lord through that same baptism because his Lord said the kingdom belonged to those infants, too. And certainly those same infants in Christ were fed on Christ’s body and blood, the food of the kingdom.
Mike: “When was Paul baptized? When did Paul partake of communion? Not when he was separated from the womb. Not when he was circumcised. He was baptized after he believed and was commissioned to preach to the nations. He followed exactly the pattern set by Jesus. We mess with it (with crazy constructs built on illogical leaps as above) at our peril. And if we insist on relying on historical traditions to bolster our errant practice, we are behaving like Paul before his conversion – glorying in the flesh.”
Mike, with respect I’d point out that Paul was treated as any adult convert. The New Testament church didn’t exist at his birth but he was circumcised, was he not? Was he circumcised after he’d made a commitment to the Jewish faith or as done in OT times, was he circumcised like every other Jewish child? Do you have any statements from Jesus that this practice was to change? Perhaps from the Apostles?
As the NT church first used the OT Scriptures it was beholden on Christ and the Apostles to specifically call out any such changes. Of course you’ve noticed that I am by the grace of God not in the sola Scripture camp. That doesn’t mean that I devalue a set of books which I believe to be uniquely inspired by God nor does it mean that I am glorying in the flesh. Were I to glory in the flesh I’d have used those centuries in which the only canon was reliance on the OT and the faith handed down by the Apostles as an excuse to formulate my own fun doctrines.
You do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, right? When formulated by the Council of Nicaea in 325 they still didn’t have a completed canon. We Christians aren’t Mormons–we didn’t find our Bible hidden under a rock all bound together and waiting to be discovered. Protestants, and this is one of the reasons why in good conscience I can’t be one, tend to treat the early church teachings as a buffet line–picking and choosing what feels good at the time. That meets my definition of glorifying in the flesh.
In 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, proposed a list of 27 books for the NT, the same we use today but the list was in a pastoral letter to the various churches in his flock and he took care to remind his churches that these letters were in the process of being canonized, an acknowledgment that he alone wasn’t chosen to by God to put together a library (Biblia) and that the wider church would have to accept or reject his list.
This same early church which had the wisdom to reject numerous heresies over the centuries, doing so without the benefit of a completed canon, over a number of centuries carefully put the canon together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and delivered it to you and I. Do you trust them or deep in the recesses of your heart are you worried that maybe these fathers who only had tradition as a guide somehow didn’t get it right?
Perhaps they were wrong in excluding Acts of Paul and Thecla, 3 Corinthians, and the Preaching of Peter? We can argue this point over and over, like a dog chasing his own tail, but today in 2013 we have a Bible that was canonized by men who were handed down the faith as taught by Christ and the Apostles (hmm, holy tradition). How did they do? Are you satisfied that they cooperated with the Holy Spirit and nailed it?
Sorry Mike, I shouldn’t have written in a hurry and at the same time dealing with a little bout of food poisoning. It was Paul who thought circumcision was equal to mutilation. Paul as you know was Apostle to the uncircumcised, the Gentile world.
[…] Over at Kuyperian Commentary, Luke Welch has started a good conversation on paedocommunion. Here is his first post and his latest. a […]
Too much to comment on here, but it amazes me how not only good hermeneutical practice but even basic logic goes out the window when it comes to paedobaptism. I’m about to blog through Rich Lusk’s ‘Paedofaith’ to expose it for what it is, if you’re interested. Not to knock anybody, just to show how beautiful and important (and efficacious) credobaptism is.
What kind of hermeneutics did the church practice during those centuries when there was no canon? 🙂 I don’t understand how one can use the same Scripture that was compiled by Godly men guided by the leading of the Holy Spirit, yet can reject the traditions that formulated that same Canon.
I’d go along with that if a) the church fathers actually agreed with one another, b) they all agreed on infant baptism (they didn’t), and c) we should expect no further doctrinal development after the early centuries. If the Scriptures themselves didn’t paint a picture of baptism so different to the one accepted by paedobaptists, there would be no dispute. It is the Bible itself which creates credobaptists. We don’t have to read into the texts things which aren’t there, nor do we have to misrepresent what circumcision meant and then import it into the New Covenant, and misrepresent what baptism means. The whole construct is built on an assumption, and Scriptures are twisted to fit it (as Luke does above). It doesn’t come from Scripture itself.
The case for paedocommunion does not depend on reading infant faith toward God into a passage like Ps. 22:9-10. David encourages his own present trust in the Lord by rehearsing God’s provision for his needs as a nursing infant. (See Calvin’s commentary.) We can do the same thing today with ourselves, and with our children as they grow.
Mike, I’d like to hear your response to Peter Jones’ observation about trust in the specific context of Psalm 22 when considering the larger word study put forth. I am also interested in your answer to his original question in the thread.
Peter A. – thanks
The paedosacraments debate doesn’t hinge on the meaning of a single word found in an Old Covenant context. That’s why I find this debate so strange. It’s like a palaeontologist discovering chicken bones with a plastic knife and fork and concluding that chickens manufactured tool from polymers. What’s really sad is that the debate gets shifted way out of town like this because there is absolutely no support for the practices in the actual New Covenant texts. And some very bright people fail to comprehend how their hermeneutic is being twisted out of all proportion to pander to this wart of a doctrine and keep it alive. Heck, we’ll even turn baptism into another gospel and carnalize the definition of Christian to keep this sick puppy alive. (don’t worry, I’m smiling)
The logical course of action is to interpret the Psalm in the light of the actual Covenants. What did circumcision mean? All Israel as a household, then a tribe, then tribes, then a nation, was under Covenant obligation to God. What did the end of circumcision mean? It meant that *all nations* are under Covenant to God. He is calling all nations to repent. The death of Christ fulfilled circumcision. This means that what you think you are doing to your infants (and what was done to you “objectively”) has already been done in Christ for every man, woman and child on the planet. To delineate those under your “Covenant care” is to say that unbelievers are not accountable to Christ under the New Covenant. We have gone back to the “all nations” priesthood of Noah and Melchizedek, where no sign was necessary. However, our Melchizedek is a better one, who gives His Spirit to those who repent and believe, like Noah, so we need a sign for those who personally “pass through the flood” and are qualified to rule through access to the sanctuary. That is baptism. It is not tribal or genealogical but a sign of ethical maturity (the knowledge of good and evil). To turn it into something else is to rebuild what Jesus tore down.
That is the light in which we must interpret the Psalm. I’m sure it doesn’t seem so to you, but the desperate use of any text containing an infant to support this practice is mind blowing to me. And it appeals to the flesh. It turns our focus inward onto our own offspring and families rather than outward, which is the direction of the New Covenant.
Mike, no one is saying the debate hinges on Psalm 22 or a single word in Psalm 22. It is one passage. But apparently a passage you refuse to exegete. You darken the text of Psalm 22 by doing exactly what you claim we do: using your magic hermeneutical wand to make the text say whatever you want it to. But words mean something. Trust in Psalm 22 means something. God being David’s God since the womb means something. Where is your interpretation of Psalm 22? I agree that we should interpret passages in light of the whole Bible. But you haven’t done that. You have given us your overall view of the Bible, but have failed to deal with Psalm 22. How does this Psalm fit your systematics? With Grace, Peter Jones
Peter, thanks for the response.
Apparently you insist on interpreting the New Covenant in the “light” of the Covenant with Abraham. If we take the New Covenant promises at face value, the meaning of Psalm 22 is plain. God deals with three facets of the world. In Genesis 1, Man is a physical being, representing the Physical world to God. In Genesis 2, blood is shed and Man becomes a Social being, representing God to his wife. In Genesis 3, Man is called to be an ethical being, representing God to the world and the world and his wife to God, presenting them as spotless.
We see the same threefold pattern play out in the history. The original “Physical” Covenant was broken and the Physical world was destroyed. God then called Abraham, and human blood was spilled. The Abrahamic Covenant was fundamentally Social. Circumcision delineated a single people. The New Covenant is fundamentally Ethical, though it has effect in the Social and Physical realms.
How is this relevant to Psalm 22? Every child learns to trust at the breast of a mediator. As Adam represents God to his wife, so also Adam and Eve together represent God and His people to their children. The process of childrearing is firstly Physical, secondly Social and thirdly Ethical. Parents are to present their children as ethically mature, wise judges, to God.
The Psalmist sees the correspondence between the Physical, Social and Ethical, and in a sense conflates them. Now that he himself knows God, without the mediation of his parents, he can see that God was behind the scenes all the way through.
This should not be strange to us. Mankind refused to acknowledge God as Father so God called a human father who could mediate His faithfulness to mankind. The problem was that the Physical and Social aspects became more important to the Jews than the Ethical, which was the entire point. Adam’s sin was a distrust of God as His Father. Like the Jews, he made the devil his “ethical” father.
When Jesus matured, He revealed the true Father. There was no longer any need for an Abrahamic inheritance. The time of childhood was over. A better Adam was imaging the true Father.
To claim that David was conscious of his Father in heaven, without mediation, is crazy. It makes the entire Old Testament, and parents of any kind, unnecessary. God always works through mediators (like the Law) until we can stand on our own feet and mediate Him to others.
Baptism is not for infants. It is for qualified mediators, which includes godly parents who are empowered by the Spirit of Christ. To claim otherwise is make a dog’s breakfast of the entire Bible.
Peter, I feel like I’ve fallen between the two “sides” here, but this is how I see some of the texts you mentioned. I intend no disrespect for you in your work for Christ’s flock.
I agree that the Hebrew word batach does indeed mean trust, or something similar, but only the usage in a particular place can show what the object of trust is. Psalms 9:10, 22:4, 5, 25:2 say the trust is “in you” (becha). Psalms 21:7, 26:1, and 32:10 say the trust is in the LORD (Yahweh). In Psalm 28:7 the trust is “in him” (bow). Psalm 56:4 and 11 say “God” (Elohim).
Psalm 22:9 says the psalmist was made to trust “upon” (al) his mother’s breasts. The NASB adds “when” before “upon.” The ESV adds “you,” but it is not explicit in the text that God is the object of trust. (Maybe Hebrew experts can show why the ESV translation is preferable.) Of course David sees the provision of infant nourishment as from God, and trusts God to rescue him from enemies, but it is reading into the text, I believe, to find him asserting his state of mind toward God while an infant. A natural reading like the RSV is not too far wrong: “Thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts.”
IMO, the extent and nature of infant faith is an in house discussion for paedobaptists, and now also for paedocommunion advocates. Neither PB nor PC depend on establishing infant faith. (Although I’m willing to consider arguments to the contrary.) It is enough to argue from the membership of children among the people of God for their participation in the sacraments. Peace and grace, John
John, thanks for the respectful reply. I am not a Hebrew expert. Maybe someone else can address the grammar. One of my mottos is to keep going back to the text. So I went back and reread Psalm 22. You are right. Trust in 22:9 does not have a direct object as it does in many of other verses mentioned. However, a few verses up in 22:4-5 the same word is used 3 times. In all three cases it is trust in the Lord. (22:8 uses a different word.) So the context points us to trusting in the Lord as the most natural interpretation. It is possible trust is used differently in 22:9 than in verses 4-5, but it is not likely. David is making a parallel between himself and his fathers. His fathers trusted in the Lord and the Lord delivered them. He has trusted in the Lord, so he is asking the Lord to deliver him as well. And God does in 22:21b. Also in 22:10 David has had some type of relationship with the Lord since conception. I agree infant faith is tricky. David wrote 22:9-10, but he also wrote 51:5. I also agree that neither PC or PB depend upon infant faith. And I agree there it is an in house issue. But Psalm 22 is a strong passage in favor of covenant infants have some type of real relationship with the Lord. With Grace, Peter
All this seems to rest on the assumption of “Covenant children.” Are people outside the Church outside the New Covenant, as the nations were outside the Abrahamic Covenant? To claim so is to claim that the promises to Abraham were not fulfilled. The Aaronic priesthood is finished, so all children are under the Covenant now. No sign is necessary, except for those who mediate the Covenant as priest-kings like Melchizedek. This sign is baptism.
Peter, Thanks for your thoughts. I absolutely agree that Ps. 22 (including verses 9 and 10) supports seeing our children as belonging to the Lord, and using that the truth of that psalm as we bring them up. John
Mike, It seems to me that there is neither agreement nor altogether clarity on what “outside” and “under” the covenant might mean.
Yes, in the most important sense–that of being saved and being God’s people. Everyone now lives in the New Covenant era, but not everyone is a member of (or “under”) the New Covenant.
The promise to Abraham was to be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:6). However, Paul says this is fulfilled in those who are “of the faith of Abraham” (Rom. 4:16-17). Those outside the Church (while they remain unbelievers) are not the seed/children of Abraham, and not (as yet) members of the New Covenant.
I’m not sure what “under the Covenant” means here.
The people of Israel were priest-kings at the same time that the Aaronic priesthood was established (Exod. 19:6). The church’s royal priesthood is in continuity with Israel’s, and the church’s expanded focus and greater Spiritual power in priesthood are fulfillments of the Messianic promises to Israel. In the history of redemption, the church has now come to a kind of maturity–but that, in itself, does not expel the children of believers from the royal priesthood.
I hope your winter “down under” is not too harsh these days! Grace in all, John
Webmaster: I’m sorry–my formatting deleted Mike’s quotes in this post! Reposted below.
Thanks John
In every case there is “seed” and “fruit.” Circumcision was about seed, but not all the seed produced righteous fruit. Baptism is about fruit. This is why, when the Spirit was given, circumcision became meaningless. Whether the fruit came from the cultivated Land or the uncultivated world no longer mattered.
Baptism vindicates the fruit of the seed, (the seed being the gospel).
So circumcision was about spiritual planting, the latter about spiritual harvest. Being “under” the New Covenant means the territory God is now cultivating is the entire planet. But that is still seed, not fruit. Baptism is for those who respond with the fruits of the Spirit.
This means that baptizing our children sets the boundary of God’s work at the edges of the Church. It confuses the field with the harvest.
Regards,
Mike
Mike, Thank you for a prompt response!
In the Old Covenant, when someone became a believer, wasn’t circumcision a vindication of the fruit of faith in that case (as with Abraham himself)? Baptism and circumcision may have different aspects in terms of redemptive history, but don’t they work the same way in a believer’s life? Although circumcision is obsolete in the New Covenant, it’s not meaningless. Paul still calls it a seal of the righteousness of faith. If I became a Baptist, I don’t see how my “second” baptism would have any greater usefulness in my life than my infant baptism. (I know–we are to obey without always understanding, but I’m not convinced of a necessity to contemn the baptism I already received.)
Peter, Thanks for your thoughts. I absolutely agree that Ps. 22 (including verses 9 and 10) supports seeing our children as belonging to the Lord. The truth of that psalm is useful as we bring them up. Grace to you, John
Mike, It seems to me that there is neither agreement nor altogether clarity on what “outside” and “under” the covenant might mean.
“Are people outside the Church outside the New Covenant, as the nations were outside the Abrahamic Covenant?”
Yes, in the most important sense–that of being saved and being God’s people. Everyone now lives in the New Covenant era, but not everyone is a member of (or “under”) the New Covenant.
“To claim so is to claim that the promises to Abraham were not fulfilled.”
The promise to Abraham was to be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:6). However, Paul says this is fulfilled in those who are “of the faith of Abraham” (Rom. 4:16-17). Those outside the Church (while they remain unbelievers) are not the seed/children of Abraham, and not (as yet) members of the New Covenant.
“The Aaronic priesthood is finished, so all children are under the Covenant now.”
I’m not sure what “under the Covenant” means here.
“No sign is necessary, except for those who mediate the Covenant as priest-kings like Melchizedek. This sign is baptism.”
The people of Israel were priest-kings at the same time that the Aaronic priesthood was established (Exod. 19:6). The church’s royal priesthood is in continuity with Israel’s, and the church’s expanded focus and greater Spiritual power in priesthood are fulfillments of the Messianic promises to Israel. In the history of redemption, the church has now come to a kind of maturity–but that, in itself, does not expel the children of believers from the royal priesthood.
I hope your winter “down under” is not too harsh these days! Grace in all, John
From Is 49,54,59, Joel2/Acts 2, Mt 18/19, Gal 2-4 one may conclude that children are included in the new covenant even more firmly than in the old. / The children of believers hear the gospel (make sure they do), and faith comes by hearing; the children of unbelievers may not hear the gospel, especially not from people they trust. / So one may conclude that infant baptism is believers’ baptism, and infant communion is believers’ communion, though a case (or cases) can be made for infant participation without this line of thought. / If children aren’t saved by faith, what of sola fide? (Search “feed God’s babies Lohr” for more.) / Re the canon, did the church recognize it or constitute it: submit to authority, or set it up by authority? I say recognize. Either way, it took awhile, so people can function without a perfect canon (as ‘ol Gene Edwards delightfully points out.) / We’re showing the Lord’s death. If he died for our children, how can the showing exclude them?
“the children of unbelievers may not hear the gospel”
I must be in a different “New Covenant” from the one you are in. The focus in the New Testament is not physical but spiritual offspring.
“If children aren’t saved by faith, what of sola fide?”
I’m not connecting the dots with that comment. Who suggested that children aren’t saved by faith?
Mike–huh? Christian parents (should) expose their children to the gospel. Unbelievers may not. Sociological plain fact, not deep covenant theology. (So humanly speaking it’s up to us to reach unbelievers, and) So the spiritual new birth has more opportunity to happen (humanly speaking) where parents are Christians. Not that the old covenant neglected the Spiritual side. / Tim, our brothers who talk of “believers’ baptism” and deny baptism to children do not tend to say young children go to Hell. They talk of “age of accountability.” (My “Church of Christ” friend Mack Hunt of blessed memory said “Children aren’t saved, but they’re safe.”) So it seems to me that in such systems, salvation for infants in some other way than by faith must be lurking around somewhere. Salvation without faith. ?!?!? My view (they hear, they believe, later on they articulate) avoids this complication. So I think sola fide should involve infant baptism and communion.
[…] To see Part 2: Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther […]
Andrew– you wrote: “So it seems to me that in such systems, salvation for infants in some other way than by faith must be lurking around somewhere.”
It’s actually just the opposite. Credos like myself are keen on maintaing the ‘faith alone’ distinction of the New Covenant, and it sems that in this discussion, it is assumed that children of believing parents are already IN the New Covenant (which is by faith alone, not geneology), and hence their reception of baptism as infants.
The New Covenant is for believers only, and all New Covenant members have in their possession the heart of flesh and the Spirit (Ezekial 36:26-27), salvific knowledge of the Lord, the permanent forgiveness of sins, and the willingness to obey Jesus (Hebrews 8).
At least that’s what us baptists believe anyway…
[…] Paedocommunion? Saved by Some Kinda Faith or a Nuther See the first post in this series: Paedocommunion? A Simple Experiment to Test Your Views ONCE UPON A TIME GOD TOUCHED SOME BABIES …who had been brought into his very throne room, into the heart of his holy space – and they – those nursing babes, were sat on God’s lap. Now God’s(…) […]