INCLUSION OF CHILDREN

My argument is that all people, from cradle to grave, are now included in the Covenant. All are to come under the sound of the gospel, and under its discipline – as disciples. The blood boundary is gone, torn down by Jesus. Paedobaptism practically puts the wall of circumcision back up again.

INTERNAL VS. EXTERNAL

Hebrews 9 makes it clear that the Law was about the externals, the stoicheia, the elementary school.

1 CORINTHIANS 10

The Red Sea was all about government. With whom was God angry? The children? No. With those who should have believed and conquered the Land. Circumcision and Passover concerned the unity of flesh in its cutting off. The Red Sea was resurrection, hence the song of Miriam. It concerned the victorious “warrior bride.”

Paul uses this historical type to argue not for familial, denominational or cultural unity (which is what paedobaptism actually is), but for spiritual unity as ministers of the gospel. He is not talking about the children at all, but about the elders. This is one of 3 or 4 verses that keep cropping up because there is nothing else. It’s a bit like arguing with an evolutionist who keeps using the debunked black/white moth argument, or the doctored embryo diagrams.

ARGUING FROM SILENCE

“…notice that there’s no evidence that anyone who was a child born to a believing parent had to wait until he was old enough and articulate enough to profess his faith before being baptized. None. Ever.”

No, but the fact that repentance and faith are prerequisites is made very clear. And real spiritual fruit was required to remain within that boundary. What else is necessary? There’s no proof that “household animals” weren’t baptized either.

Neither archaeology or the historical record of the early church are exactly supportive of paedobaptism either. If the apostles were allowing it, it is highly unlikely that this would be the case.

AGED 30

Actually, it is your kind of argument. It is taking something that is typological and physically importing it into the New Covenant without warrant. In your case, it is taking a genealogical sign and applying it to a Covenant where geneaologies no longer matter. They were all burnt up.

BOUNDARIES

“Now imagine the circle with the Laver extended to, not just men and women, but infants as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for babies to minister also.”

What, like Baby Herman? I would need a really good imagination for that. Or drugs. This is preposterous. When someone is forced to take an unnatural position, there is a bee in his pocket. No one would claim such a thing if they didn’t have a strange tradition to defend.

BEING CUT OFF

I believe God finishes the work he starts in us. Fruit is the evidence of faith, of the work of the Spirit. Those who are saved will continue, they will persevere. Baptism is not for those under conviction. It is for those who have repented and believed.

ACTS 2

This is another doctored embryo verse. Peter said the promise was for them, their children and those afar off. It is Tabernacle architecture. The condition was still repentance and faith in Christ. The children of believers would have heard the gospel, but to claim the babies were baptized is pushing it. Why does it not mention the children of those afar off? If Peter was truly teaching that baptism now replaced circumcision, the rest of the book of Acts would not play out the way it does at all. The disputes over circumcision would not look the way they do. In Acts 21, Paul was falsely accused of teaching that baptism replaced circumcision. This is where PBs fail to follow through with the logic. And the same handful of painfully taut verses get regurgitated over and over.

TALKING TO BABIES

Yes, we FORM our babies by talking to them. We bring them under the ministry of the gospel. But baptism isn’t for those who are under the sound of the gospel, but for those who have responded and can now minister it, those who are FILLED. God speaking is one thing. It cuts our hearts (circumcision). When we speak back, that’s what baptism is about. His Word has not returned void. Babies are only receptors of the gospel until they come to faith.

You have to crunch too many gears to apply this “response” to infants. As Tammy pointed out on Doug’s blog, a key New Covenant word is understanding.

In fact, you have to crunch the gears and put the Covenant history bus in reverse even to make a case for it. Why hold onto a doctrine that causes so much other doctrinal strife? [Sorry - disrespectful analogy - I have removed it!] If the controversy weren’t so tragic and damaging it would be hilarious.

TREE OF LIFE

Well, no matter what order Adam’s test would have taken, his vindication as Victor, standing on the springs, is at the end of his time under the childish Law, not at the beginning. And, as I said, nearly every (if not every) baptism story in Acts follows the same pattern, with baptism at the end. It’s too perfect to discount.

Kind regards,
Mike

Thanks for commenting!

- I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not a gnostic. What I’m advocating is a better understanding of “Spirit-filled flesh.”

- Limitations: it seems to me that some of the younger gents who subscribe to the FV are more willing to take it to its logical, and more obviously aberrant, conclusions, such as the suggestions by commenters here that Covenant renewal worship should be closed to the unbaptized, the unbelieving spouses of believers should be baptized, and babies should be adopted so they can be baptized. These ideas are not extreme or illogical. The tree is known by its fruit, and its fruitcakes (the conclusions, not the commenters.) It has limitations but it they are very strange ones.

-Paedobaptism concerns itself with the succession of flesh (there’s simply no way around it). It could be simply because I’m a baptist, but that border of flesh is unwelcoming. It doesn’t communicate “all nations.” Like circumcision, it communicates, at least in the modern world, “sect.” For those in the inside, it promotes a false sense of security and a false sense of obligation. For those on the outside it puts up an Old Covenant familial, even racial, wall. This is not intentional, but it’s not New Covnenant. Credobaptists can achieve the same effect through Pharisaic inhospitality, as the Closed Brethren do. They, too, are concerned so much with their physical seed that they have become a sect, a closed door (Funny thing is, they do business like postmillennisalists! – Amazingly innovative, honest, practical.) So, your theology might be expansionist and more inclusive, but in practice you’ve erected a wall where Jesus knocked one down. Paedobaptism is not a boundary of faith. It is a man-made border around family, church, or culture, in a Covenant that is supposed to transcend, and does transcend, all of these. The Christianity that is booming in the global south understands this. I don’t find a lot of weird Dutch names among them. (No disrespect, but this is a direct result of a spiritual succession limited to family and culture. I am very glad you are Brazilian! You seem to be an exception.)

- Dr Leithart’s article, with all due respect, really surprised me – this material is in his book “The Baptized Body.” He confuses an infant’s trust in its parents with a believer’s trust in God. One is a type of the other, but they are not the same. And it confuses the New Covenant sign with Covenant parenting. My kids are Covenant kids. They weren’t ostracized from church, and they understood what baptism and table meant long before they came to faith as New Covenant priests. They know what a Christian actually is. It is not something you inherit. The Gospel-Law brought them to Christ.

With all respect for you my brother

Cheers,
Mike

As you pointed out, my responses do come from the assumption that paedobaptism is right. I like to start with the truth. =) No, seriously, that is my starting point, such that I would need significant arguments to shift me away from it.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the burden of proof is on those who maintain that children are no longer included in God’s covenant. If they were once included in God’s covenant and now aren’t, that needs to be demonstrated. It is thus the credobaptist who has the burden of proof in this matter.

But it seems to me that on several occasions you have responded with assertions, not with arguments (e.g., “Becoming a Christian requires internal compliance from the start. It is a thing of the Spirit”). That’s something that you need to argue for; it’s not a starting point that we necessarily have in common.

A couple responses to your responses to my responses:

> Let me put it this way: there’s
> no evidence that anyone who
> wasn’t repentant and had come
> to faith was baptized. None.
> Ever.

Well, there is 1 Corinthians 10, where we find that all the Israelites, including their infant children, were baptized.

But notice that there’s no evidence that anyone who was a child born to a believing parent had to wait until he was old enough and articulate enough to profess his faith before being baptized. None. Ever.

> New Covenant baptism is about serving
> in the Tabernacle as a priest.

It’s about a lot of things. This is one of them. But it’s not the only one.

> If I were to use your kind of
> argument here, I would say that
> people needed to be thirty
> before they could be baptized.

But that’s not my kind of argument. I don’t think that the only thing that corresponds to baptism is priestly washing. I have argued that cleansing after touching the dead (which cleansing would have applied to children) also corresponds to baptism. In fact, it seems to me that YOUR view would lead one to think that baptism ought to take place at age 30.
> Now, imagine the outer square
> boundary fulfilled and extended
> by Christ to all nations, not
> just Israel, all people, all
> infants. And imagine the circle
> (Laver) boundary within it
> extended to, not just men, but
> to women as well, because the
> Holy Place is now safe for Eve
> to minister also.

Now imagine the circle with the Laver extended to, not just men and women, but infants as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for babies to minister also.

> Yes, and if their children didn’t
> believe, they were cut off.

Yes, and if you don’t believe, you will be cut off also. Same for me. What’s true of children is true of grown-ups. If we don’t abide in Christ, we will be cut off and burned (John 15).

> Infant baptism was introduced later
> because we as fallen humans are so
> tied to fleshly boundaries.

Naw. Infant baptism was introduced at least by Acts 2, when Peter told the crowds that the promise was for their children.

> Talking to babies is not just
> ridiculous (as evidence) but
> irrelevant.

The point Leithart is making is that it is precisely by talking to our babies that we shape who they are. They become “them” in response to our talking to them(respondeo etsi mutabor, as Eugen would say). If that’s the case when parents talk to their children, and I think it is, then how much more when God speaks to our children?

> Tree of Life
>
> That messes up the pattern that we see
> later on in better, faithful Adams.
> They receive the fruit of wisdom after
> the serpent is crushed. They obey, and
> then they understand.

Well, I’m just following Jim’s “Merit or Maturity” here. =) See also my essay on Psalm 8 in the forthcoming Festschrift. First, Adam was under the angels for a little while. Then he would be crowned with glory and honor.

Perhaps in the pattern you’ve spotted, the subsequent wisdom is a move beyond priest and king to prophet.

Thanks again for the interaction.

Your responses seem to come from the assumption that paedobaptism is right, and needs to be proven otherwise. It’s not very helpful. It’s like claiming that homosexuality is OK because Jesus didn’t speak about it. An argument from silence is not an argument. What do we actually find in the New Testament?

Anyhow…

Outward Compliance

Yes, outward compliance was required once you were an Israelite. But becoming a Jew was a thing of the flesh. Becoming a Christian requires internal compliance from the start. It is a thing of the Spirit. It does not end with a circumcised heart, it begins with a circumcised heart. I will post my latest reply to Doug here shortly, which shows that these two rites work in series, not parallel.

Households

You’ll have to do better than that. The requirements for baptism are clearly spelled out. As mentioned, Luke makes a point of saying it was “men and women.” You can’t point to Abraham. That’s a boundary of flesh, the first birth, womb not tomb. This really isn’t that difficult. Let me put it this way: there’s no evidence that anyone who wasn’t repentant and had come to faith was baptized. None. Ever.

Washings

New Covenant baptism is about serving in the Tabernacle as a priest. It’s for people with clean feet who can pass through and serve, Adam and Eve on the springs of water. If I were to use your kind of argument here, I would say that people needed to be thirty before they could be baptized.

The Laver

This particular point isn’t hard to see in the book of Acts. The Laver is Day 6. Cut each baptism story into 7 equal parts and you’ll find the baptism near the end. It makes new mediators.

Boundary of Flesh

Imagine a circle within a square. The circle is the priesthood with access to the Laver. The outer boundary, the square, is the border of blood, the tribes.

Now, imagine the outer square boundary fulfilled and extended by Christ to all nations, not just Israel, all people, all infants. And imagine the circle (Laver) boundary within it extended to, not just men, but to women as well, because the Holy Place is now safe for Eve to minister also. Adam is the link to the Most Holy (up), and Eve is the link to the nations (down).

Covenant

The first Covenant was marriage. But the first broken Covenant concerned the tree. Standing as mediator of flesh was the fulfilment of marriage. But standing as mediator of the Spirit required obedience at the tree. Circumcision cuts off the flesh. Baptism vindicates the Spirit. Adam was supposed to fill the world with “Spirit-filled flesh”, but it was only flesh. That’s why the great commission was required. To fill the world of flesh with the Spirit.

To You and Your Children

Yes, and if their children didn’t believe, they were cut off. Israel was given one more generation. Jesus told the Jewish women to weep for their children. I have covered this elsewhere. It has to do with the three-decker world in the literary structure: You – hearers of the Word; Your Children – Israel in the Land (Sacrament of flesh); those afar off – Gentile court – Government. It is a call to repent and be baptize, not to go around baptizing everyone because all are now true Jews. As I have said elsewhere, if you want to baptize unbelieving children, you should be consistent and baptize unbelieving spouses. And if not, why not?

Bringing a Baby for Sprinkling

Is it? Yes, of course it is. That’s what it looks like in the Bible, most certainly. Circumcision was a national barrier, a fleshly succession. Baptism is

Raw Meat

Babies are raw, Adamic meat. Circumcision pictured Adamic (federal) death, and baptism pictures evian (corporate) resurrection. Christ fulfilled circumcision and dealt with original sin, so infants don’t need anything except the gospel. You can claim that baptism gives them the Spirit, but they are not repentant. It messes terribly with what baptism actually is. Whatever you claim, you are using it to mark out a boundary of untransformed flesh. That’s why a Christian baby is not a baby Christian. It’s only a Christian by flesh, by Adamic succession, not the succession of the Spirit, which transcends all familial, denominational, cultural and national boundaries.

Psalm 8

Infants “mediating the gospel.” Good point. But so do scrolls, and books, and MP3s. That’s not what this is about. It’s about a person as a mature, fulfilled Tabernacle or Temple, out of whose belly the living waters flow, producing spiritual offspring because they are spiritually fertile. It’s grown-up, priesthood stuff. This is grasping at straws.

Holy

Yes, there is a “holy” that is set apart for sacrifice. That is the Covenant delegated. And there is a holy that follows the transforming fire. This is Covenant holiness vindicated. Circumcision was for the former. Baptism is for the latter. And this plays out not only corporately, but individually. Baptists might be dangerously individualistic at times, but FV baptism is dangerously corporate. Which is why Doug Wilson had to suggest a “reaffirmation of vows” on his blog this week.

Leithart

Sorry. No – I do agree that it is more than an external sign. But it is only so because it is an obedient response by the person being baptized.

Acts 2

Yes, the order is different, but as I said, Spirit baptism was a sign. Jesus’ baptism was followed by the Spirit. But it’s the “John” baptism being fulfilled in Christ. In all cases, repentance was required. Do you think there’s a good reason why the Scriptures record no babies being brought to John, and no artist or commentator ever since has ever mentioned it? At least not in my experience. Everyone knows it was about repentance. Infant baptism was introduced later because we as fallen humans are so tied to fleshly boundaries. But that’s not where our security lies any more.

Talking to Babies

One again, flesh. Not spirit. Our children are to be under the sound of the gospel until they repent and come to New Covenant faith. Talking to babies is not just ridiculous (as evidence) but irrelevant.

Hebrews 10

See my post “Second Hand Curses.” That’s the context of Hebrews.

Tree of Life

That messes up the pattern that we see later on in better, faithful Adams. They receive the fruit of wisdom after the serpent is crushed. They obey, and then they understand.

Bible Matrix

I’d be interested to read it. But Bible Matrix doesn’t go much further than simply systematizing what JBJ teaches.

Thanks again for the responses.

Sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you:

> Outward Compliance
>
> If you kept the Law, who cared what
> was in your heart?

God did. He says so repeatedly. He tells Israel that he hates their feasts (the ones He Himself commanded) because their hearts are far from him.

> Jesus makes a big point about
> internal compliance.

So does Moses when he urges people to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts (Deut 10:16).

> Covenant breakers were not those
> who failed to respond in faith.

Sure they were. Hebrews 4:1 says that those who perished in the wilderness and didn’t inherit the land were those who didn’t receive the promise “mixed with faith.”

> External compliance was supposed
> to LEAD to faith.

Sure. And flow out of faith. Both.

> Households
>
> Was everyone in Abraham’s household
> circumcised? No. The females
> weren’t. They didn’t qualify. This
> is not evidence for paedobaptism.

Why not?

> Washings
>
> That doesn’t leave any baptisms
> that did not require repentance.
> Did people bring their babies to
> John in the Jordan for baptism?
> Of course not.

Why not?

> Sure, a child might have touched
> a dead body, but was a child
> permitted to serve in the Tabernacle?

A child — even an infant — who touched a dead body would have been baptized on the third and seventh day so that he could be “resurrected” into the community of God’s people again.

No, a child wouldn’t be a priest. But a child would nevertheless be holy: The priests’ children got to eat the holy food that only priests can eat. Therefore they also had to undergo the cleansing rituals — baptisms — if they became unclean.

> Baptism is certainly linked to
> the washings commanded of all
> Israel, but more narrowly to
> the Laver used by the priests.

Fine. But we learn about the meaning of baptism, not only from the laver but also from all the other “baptisms” (Heb 9) of the Old Covenant.

> Just about every baptism passage
> in Acts (if not all of them) uses
> the Bible Matrix, and the baptism
> occurs at the Laver/Conquest/
> Atonement: Day 6 – Adam and
> Eve with no kids. I think Luke
> was trying to tell us something.

Again, I’m unpersuaded of the Bible Matrix itself, so this argument doesn’t help me.

> Expansion and Contraction
>
> The “flesh” boundary of the Covenant
> is now instruction of ALL nations.

I’m sorry. This isn’t clear to me. Could you please explain what you mean?

> The “Spirit” boundary of the Covenant
> is now males and females serving in
> the court of God. There is no
> contraction. Paedobaptism conflates
> these two boundaries.

I’m still not understanding what you mean. Could you please try again? I must be missing something here.

> Adam Formed and Filled
>
> Adam was formed from the dust,
> then filled with the breath of life.
> That does follow the Covenant
> pattern. But he was not a
> “Federal Head” until he received
> the Law.

I’m sorry. You’ll have to explain this, as well. It seems to me that he was precisely a federal head. It’s Adam’s sin that brings death to the human race (Rom 5), including Woman. So he was functioning as her head at the time, and death spreads to her as the result of one man’s disobedience.

> Acts 2
>
> The Spirit only falls on those
> who have received the Law and
> believed it. Infants don’t qualify.

But you’ve missed part of my point. In your comment above, you said that the Scriptural order was repent – faith – Spirit – baptism. But in Acts 2, that’s precisely not the order. Baptism precedes Spirit in Acts 2.

I’m not sure why you say “Infants don’t qualify.” Peter says otherwise: “The promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN.”

> Bringing A Baby for Sprinkling
>
> Bringing someone to Christ is
> bringing someone to faith.

Is it?

> If they believe, they confess
> with their mouth. I don’t think
> bubs as any idea what’s going
> on, do you?

This kind of wooden application of what Paul says in Romans 10 would mean that someone who is mute can’t be saved since, after all, he can’t confess with the mouth.

Furthermore, even if you don’t want to be THAT strict, it would also preclude, not only infants, but the mentally handicapped from salvation, since they cannot articulate their confession of faith.

> I have relatives who say they
> are Christian. What they mean
> is that they are not Muslim.
> Paedobaptism helps make such
> confusion possible.

Hm. I find this approach quite helpful. If someone is baptized and in good standing in a church, I regard him as a Christian.

> Raw Meat
>
> Again, in the new book. We have
> moved from Bronze Altar to Golden
> Altar, from raw meat (Adam) to
> fragrant smoke (Eve).

Okay … but I have no idea how that applies to infant baptism.

> Out of the Mouths of Babes
>
> Terrible exegesis. See above.

My point was that Psalm 8 does indicate that babies and infants can “mediate the gospel” (to use you phrase). Even if they’re doing it by rote memory without full understanding.

> “Holy”
>
> Israel was set apart, sanctified,
> but they weren’t all holy.

Sure they were. Israel was the holy nation. They were the ones who had access to God, who had God dwelling in their midst.

> I don’t go for the gnostic idea
> that baptism is just an external
> sign (a la PJLeithart).

You read Leithart as saying that baptism is just an external sign?

> But neither can I accept that
> this water makes unrepentant
> (i.e. uncut, unbloodied) flesh
> acceptable to God. Circumcision
> of heart has to come first.
> Infants don’t qualify.

So you are saying that infants cannot be acceptable to God. Do you affirm the necessary corollary: All infants who die in infancy, being unacceptable to God, are damned?

> Spirit Not Inherited
>
> OK. But then why all this talk
> of “paedofaith”? Perhaps I don’t
> understand it properly, but the
> idea seems contrived to support
> this doctrine, based on dodgy
> exegesis of a handful of
> irrelevant texts that speak
> about children.

I don’t think it’s “dodgy exegesis” to take Psalm 22 as speaking of children trusting God.

Be that as it may, while I do affirm that Psalm 22 speaks of what could be called “paedofaith,” I don’t necessarily agree with everything in Rich Lusk’s book by that title, nor does my argument for infant baptism hinge on an affirmation of “paedofaith.”

> Acts 2 again
>
> Repentance and baptism qualified
> them for the Spirit. But this was
> like Jesus’ baptism. It was new,
> and it was a command to “Old
> Covenant” Jews to REPENT. Hardly
> evidence for paedobaptism.

Again, my point was not that this was evidence for paedobaptism. (The evidence for that is what Peter says later, as I mentioned above.) Rather, my point was that, contrary to what you had said, the order in Acts 2 is not Spirit – baptism but rather baptism – Spirit.

> Infant Trust
>
> See comments to Doug above.
> Once again, with all due
> respect, all this talk of
> baby trust, and PJL’s “Do
> baptists talk to their
> babies?” is quite
> ridiculous.

It’s one thing to ridicule. It’s another thing to argue. =)

> Do Muslims talk to their babies?
> Yes, of course they do. It’s
> irrelevant.

This argument is not to the point.

> Being born is not the same as
> being born again. Let me write
> that again because you gents
> don’t seem to get it. Being
> born is not the same as being
> born again.

I don’t know why you think that I would say “being born is being born again.”

> One is forming. One is filling.
> One is womb, one is tomb. One
> is binding under the curse of
> the Law (circumcision) and
> one is loosing from the curse
> of the Law (baptism).

Okay, but here we are: back at these phrases I don’t understand (womb/tomb; forming/filling). In fact, it even sounds as if you’re saying that being born (“one”) “is binding under the curse of the Law,” where being born again (“the other”) is loosing from the curse of the Law. I have no idea what this means.

> This puts he so-called “New
> Covenant curses” in context.
> Sure, God judges us for sin,
> as any good dad. But this is
> not the judgment of death and
> disinheritance experienced under
> the Old Covenant.

On the contrary, Scripture teaches (especially in Hebrews 10) that one can break the New Covenant, trampling underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he has been sanctified.

> “Is God the God of the Mature
> Professing Believer Only?”
>
> No. He is the God of every man,
> woman and child on the planet.

Not in the sense in which the question was asked. When I asked if God was the God of the mature believer only, I had in mind the sort of “being your God” that appears in the promise “I will be your God and you will be my people.” That’s not a promise that applies to every last person on earth but only to God’s special people.

> The boundary of flesh now demands
> that ALL come to repentance and
> faith.

It always did, didn’t it?

> Tree of Life
>
> Adam was immature, but he was fully
> grown. He was called to spiritual,
> not physical, maturity at that
> instant. He had heard the Law and
> was called to obey it. Infancy is
> irrelevant here. If Adam had
> crushed the serpent, he would
> have qualified for the Tree of
> Wisdom, the “wine.”

I don’t think Adam could have crushed the head of THE serpent (Satan) before he ate from the TOTKOGAE. He’s still “lower a little while than the angels.” Rather, he needed to be “crowned with glory and honor,” and only then could he be exalted over the angelic serpent, Satan. (For that matter, I’m inclined to believe that it wouldn’t have been Adam himself who dealt the final blow to Satan but rather his son, THE Son.)

> Baptism is for serpent crushers.

Why?

> Bible Matrix
>
> Fair enough. But I’ve found that
> some people get it and some
> don’t. Those who tend to think
> “in pictures” get it straight
> away. So, some adults do. Most
> children do, if not all.

Well, I’ve been reading and listening to JBJ and Leithart for a long, long time now. And I still don’t get Bible Matrix. Someday, when I have enough time, I’ll write up my critique.

Thanks for the discussion!