I guess I am just not convinced that the biblical term “regeneration” refers to a moment, I think it is more about a process – one that begins at baptism (“the washing of regeneration” – Titus 3:5). I would say the same of the term “born again” (though I wouldn’t confuse this with ‘justification’ in the Romans 3 sense).

“The children did not take the oath, the adults did.”

I think the same is the case in covenantal infant baptism. The adults make the oath on behalf of their children and this oath is binding on the kids. I think that christian parents can consider their baptised kids to be in a kind of relationship with Jesus, I can’t see how else the children of believers can be regarded as “saints” (compare Eph 1:2 & 6:1-3).

Anyway, I shall continue reading your other articles. It’s great to come across a credo who really knows his typology!

Chris W writes:

“Children in the Old Covenant were permitted access to the covenant meals like passover and to sacraments like manna and the water from the rock, which were spiritual meals (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). Would you agree that under the Old Covenant, they were included in the Covenant promise: ‘you will be My people, and I will be your God’? Why are they now disinherited in the New Covenant?”

Because the Old Covenant inheritance was physical land, physical descendants and the promise of salvation. When salvation came, the promises were fulfilled, slain, and resurrected. The “family of God” moved from being a nation of earth-dwelling caterpillars to a nation of resurrected butterflies. And we get our wings when we are born again. It’s a different kind of family. We see this exact structure in the matrix process, but the FV gents don’t see the need to apply this to individuals. However, this is what we see in the book of Acts. The Old Covenant “Red Sea” baptism was one flesh passing through the water. It is a unity of blood, a single nation with physical borders, under a single Mediator. The New Covenant baptism is “many fleshes” passing through the waters individually with a unity of Spirit, a nation of qualified mediators.

In some sense, all nations, including their children and ours, now inherit the promise of salvation. But only those born again have the promise of resurrection, and in the biblical structures, baptism is consistently corresponded to resurrection.

Chris writes:
“I don’t see a single part of the Bible which teaches that now Christ has come, God is no longer the God of our children as He was under all of the previous Covenant administrations. I agree that the Church is a Priesthood to the nations, but the Old Covenant language that was previously applied to Israel (Exodus 19:6) is now applied to the Church (1 Peter 2:9) and never to all of humanity.

Where are you getting this idea that all humanity are now God’s Covenant people from? I’d agree that it’s true in a certain sense, since the Church is the New Humanity in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22).”

Yes, Israel was a priestly nation, but even in the Old Testament we see a progression. Only the priesthood worried about their genealogies, but in Ezra, we see all Israel concerned to be genealogically “pure.” This restored Covenant pictured the New Covenant, albeit in earthly terms (all genealogies were destroyed with the Temple).

The Old Covenant put Israel under the obligation of the Law. The children did not take the oath, the adults did. I’m not saying that all nations are now a priesthood. Those who are born again are the NC priesthood, and everyone else is to be drawn to sit under our ministry as we mediate the work of the Saviour. All nations are under the obligation of the gospel.

The division is between priesthood and people. This “carnal” (bloody) division within Israel is now a spiritual division between believers and non-believers in the nations. To include non-regenerate children in this is to misunderstand the New Covenant.

I have fleshed all of this out more in the articles under the baptism tag at the top of the page (if you have the time).

Thanks for the comments.

Children in the Old Covenant were permitted access to the covenant meals like passover and to sacraments like manna and the water from the rock, which were spiritual meals (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). Would you agree that under the Old Covenant, they were included in the Covenant promise: “you will be My people, and I will be your God”? Why are they now disinherited in the New Covenant?

I don’t see a single part of the Bible which teaches that now Christ has come, God is no longer the God of our children as He was under all of the previous Covenant administrations. I agree that the Church is a Priesthood to the nations, but the Old Covenant language that was previously applied to Israel (Exodus 19:6) is now applied to the Church (1 Peter 2:9) and never to all of humanity.

Where are you getting this idea that all humanity are now God’s Covenant people from? I’d agree that it’s true in a certain sense, since the Church is the New Humanity in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22).

I think the New Testament is clear that the actual “Israel of God” is the Church, not all of humanity, but the Church is a priesthood, so now all Israel is priesthood. The Church shelters and mediates for the world as the priesthood mediated for Israel and Israel mediated for the world.

Throughout the Bible, worship becomes more and more accessible. The Church-as-Tabernacle ministry is now open to all — including our children — but baptism and table are only for the actual priesthood, the believers. It is certainly a physical, historical body, but a body united by the Spirit, which shelters those who dwell in its branches — such as babies and yet unconverted children.

The trouble I’m having with this view is that the New Testament seems to identify the Church as the New Israel of God and not all of humanity. Gal 3:27 also seems to indicate that it is through baptism that we come under the covenant, “clothed” with Christ. How do you reconcile your view with these New Testament perspectives?

Here’s my position:

1) Although Abrahamic blood wasn’t important (except of course for the Messianic line), one joined Israel “by blood.” Israel was itself a genealogy, a family, then a tribe, then a nation, then a kingdom. It had physical borders, borders of blood.

2) Dr Leithart is correct, but I believe only up to a point. Where he sees the water border of baptism replacing the border of circumcision, I see an expansion. The Laver barrier has expanded from the Tabernacle priesthood to all believers (faith, not family). But the blood barrier was not dissolved. It was expanded from the “family” of Israel to all the nations. All people are now commanded to repent, which includes children who are yet to believe. Since circumcision was fulfilled in Christ, and He has ascended, all are now “under Covenant.”

I hope that makes sense.

Also, what about the whole congregation of Israel being “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6)? Why is it that our children are now denied access into this wider priesthood? I think you should read this article by Leithart, he has some good arguments for a wider new covenant priesthood – http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-45-renewing-circumcision/

I am more convinced by infant baptism, but since this is such a complex issue, I’m always open to learning more.

Your entire construct hinges on this statement:
“Their sins are forgiven them NOT b/c of who their parents are, but because God promised to save the children of those who believe in Him.”

This is most definitely physical lineage, and there is no such promise. The promise to the Jews in Acts, as well as their children and the Gentiles “afar off” was that they would be saved if they believed the gospel. You can’t single out the children and not the Gentiles.

This promise was for first century Jews. The gospel – and Pentecost – was what all the fathers, kings and prophets had waited for. They had one more generation – their children – before the promise to Abraham’s physical seed would be gone forever.