I’m pleased to see this topic’s turned to CT, saves me making one myself.

Okay everyone (or anyone who’s willing), leave aside baptism and convince me of Covenant Theology. Why should I believe in a Covenant of Grace?

(For me, the history of IB is a distraction because of the very different reasons behind it. The modern reformed churches practice it because of CT, which is a relatively new systematic explanation of scripture. Whether or not it was done in the first century doesn’t matter cause it could well have originated with Calvin.)

Thanks for the links, Kristen and Adam. Talk about a slippery slope argument!

Adam Olive - 20 July 2008 03:52 PM

Thanks for the references Kristen.

Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church with Implications for Baptizing Small Children, WTJ 59 (1997), pp 13-29

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Indifferentism.htm

and

Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing, WTJ 59 (1997), pp143-158.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Linking.htm

Thanks for the links, Adam. Now I don’t have to worry so much about losing my well-thumbed copies! :)

I like Poythress’ articles because they address the issue from a church membership perspective, rather than a covenant theology one.

From my little knowledge of it, church membership issues are a big part of covenant theology. Our understanding of membership and the people or community of God all depends on what kinds of covenant we are under.

Hi Dannii.

While it is not improper to use language that is not used in the Bible to define our understanding of it [such as trinity], it would not seem to be helpful to use a term such as the covenant of grace when the Bible talks about several covenants, and distinguishes between an old covenant and a new covenant.

The term seems to confuse rather than clarify, I think.

Hmm, but isn’t Covenant Theology all about the Covenants of Redemption, Works and Grace, of which the later has several expressions in Biblical covenants?

My understanding is that Covenant theologians talk about a covenant of works of God with Adam and an overarching covenant of grace, amongst other things.

But if God wanted us to think of what he says to Adam in Genesis 1 and 2 as a covenant of works, why did he not use the term?

I wonder the same thing…

Hi people

I have just read this thread. Very good discussion.
As some know, I have been following the “Exodus” pattern through the Bible, and an offshoot of that was an ‘accidental’ application to baptism.

The main point would be that there are two ‘waters’ in the exodus pattern, the Red Sea (death) and the Jordan (resurrection). Both are baptisms, but circumcision pertains to the Passover, the 2nd feast (unleavened bread). It is exit from the world and entry into a new ‘people.’ There is blood and then water.

With Jordan, there is water, then blood - Jericho, the first conquest. This second baptism pertains to ‘Atonement’, the sixth feast.

Sabbath - God’s word through Moses (a single mediator - Adam)

PASSOVER - a baptism (death) that removes sin. A ‘people’ assembled

Firstfruits - Moses ascends to receive the Law

Pentecost - the Law given, the people tested

TRUMPETS - the Law repeated (Deut), an ‘army’ assembled

Atonement - a baptism and blood shed that removes ‘Eve’ from sin

BOOTHS - the army makes the Promised Land home and rules as a corporate mediator for the nations.

Israelites assembled three times a year (the feasts above in capitals). Gentiles were only welcome at Booths, at which the mediatorial nation sacrificed 70 bulls (for the 70 nations listed in Gen 10).

With that background, the entire Bible follows this pattern:

Sabbath - Creation to Abraham

Passover - Circumcsion divides humanity in two

Firstfruits - Under Moses, a priesthood ascends before God, and draws near
over blood sacrifices

Pentecost - In the biblical pattern, this central point is always testing in the wilderness. This is the life of Christ, who is tested in the way all men are, but who does not sin

Trumpets - Christ assembles the New Covenant church, making out of Jew and Gentile one new man in the first century

Atonement - A corrupted Judaism is destroyed as Jericho, vindicating the words of Christ. This is the first conquest of the age in which we now live

Booths - the final coming of Christ and the judgment, after which the saints live with Him in glory

Now, to get to the point...

Infant baptism pertains to the first ‘division’, Passover—entrance into a PEOPLE at the beginning of LIFE. New Testament baptism, however, in both type and antitype, consistently pertains to Conquest—entrance into an ARMY at the beginning of MINISTRY (government). The structure of the book of Acts hammers this home. If you read it through with the above pattern in mind, you will always find the baptisms occurring at the ‘Conquest/Atonement’ step. Here’s an example:

Creation/Sabbath
An angel commanded Philip to go to Gaza at noon

Division/Passover
Philip departed for a desert place. He miraculously ran to meet an Ethiopian eunuch’s chariot.

Ascension / Firstfruits
He was from his queen’s court and in charge of treasure. He was returning from worship in Jerusalem (the Law given). He invited Philip to come up and sit with him in his chariot.

Testing / Pentecost
The eunuch was reading Isaiah’s prophecy of the slain lamb of God.

Maturity / Trumpets
Philip explained the prophecy was about Jesus (the Law repeated), and the eunuch was converted.

Conquest / Atonement
The eunuch commanded the chariot to stop, and Philip baptized him. When they came up from the water, the Spirit took Philip away.

Glorification/Booths
The eunuch went on his way rejoicing, and Philip found himself at Azotus, and preached the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

... cont’d next post

Here is the main thesis from what I wrote:

“Following the large Bible pattern, Jesus’ Testing carried the church from Ascension (Israel) to Maturity (the NT church assembly). It makes sense that the public demonstration of Covenant membership was “transfigured” from circumcision to baptism. Christians are “born again,” filled with the Spirit and counted as mature from birth. The church’s ministry is no longer crossing the Red Sea, the baptism of Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2) --death, but crossing the Jordan, the baptism of Joshua (Hebrews 4:1-11), leaving Moses’ grave behind—resurrection. Christ commanded us to disciple and baptize, applying the “Deuteronomy-Jordan” step as we divide up Christ’s inheritance—the nations, by carrying living water across the world. The Christian era was typified by the era of Joshua and the Judges.

The sign of the Covenant has progressed from the removal of Adam’s sin (Passover) to Eve’s removal from sin (Atonement). Circumcision was only for males, because Israel’s history concerned the Adam. Baptism, however, is for both males and females, imaging the resurrection for war of a corporate Eve—the body.

Circumcision brought near those who could not stand on their own (Isaac). Baptism brings near the mature (Esther), who present themselves before God’s ministers as plunder from the nations, submitting to church government to be enrobed, washed, and seated in the royal priesthood. Obeying the gospel identified us with Greater Adam (circumcision - death). Submitting to baptism identifies us with Greater Eve and her government over us—the Saturnine sword of the Covenant (resurrection)…

Circumcision and Passover looked forward to Christ’s death. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are Covenant memorials, but also look forward to the final Conquest cleansing and resurrection.

A New Covenant believer’s baptism is a knighthood, or “Nazirite-hood.” One mature enough to publicly testify to his faith bows before his Captain and is symbolically beheaded by the sword of Conquest, smashed by the rod of iron—the church. We must be dominated before we can dominate. He rises and stands on the Laver (“Arise a knight!”). After access to the “marriage feast” he rides into battle as a water chariot—an authorised emissary. Only he who has submitted to the sword is enabled to carry it. As an image it certainly communicates the gravity of the responsibility.

As far as the world is concerned, he has hoisted the Jolly Roger. As far as Christ is concerned, he has nailed the colours of Eve to the mast and deliberately, publicly, joined the brotherhood.

With infant baptism, the glory of this mature New Covenant sacrament, as modelled in Scripture, is dimmed.”

One complaint Baptists have often made is that arguments for IB are much too complicated - they’re looking for something that you could give a new Christian to show that their own young ‘uns should be baptised as well.  Well, judging by Michael’s posts it seems that neither side has a monopoly on complication!

Let me kick the thread off again with a piece of Scripture to think about.  Could everyone kindly turn to Psalm 84:1-3, then focus on v. 3, and especially the phrase “where she may have her young”.  After you’ve thought about that for a bit, look up what Charles Spurgeon had to say about those words - his Treasury of David is available at www.biblegateway.com.

When you’ve done that (and marvelled), try finding John Gill’s comment on the same place, at the same website.

I look forward to your “reports back” ;)

One big issue here is whether or not one is born a christian. (is that the same as covenant theology??). If so, why the need to be ‘born again’? Also, is the baptist practice of infant dedication not similar to infant baptism, if one thinks of baptism of a sign of inclusion? Is there some extra spiritual protection of a child if they are baptised, or some danger if they are not? Does a child or infant who has not been baptised dies go to hell??

BTW I grew up in a baptist church which at age 3 I asked my parents to take me to (church in general). They became christians and got baptised. I was dedicated at age 5. At 8 years of age I ‘prayed the prayer’ asking Jesus into my heart. I thought about baptism but decided I was not ready, since I wanted to try lots of ‘forbidden’ things etc. At age 17 I decided God’s way was best after all, the forbidden things a waste of time, rededicated my life and got baptised.

At what point in time was I saved??? What must one do to be saved (the verse repent and be baptised comes to mind...somewhere in Acts where the listeners of Pauls sermons ask what they must do to be saved). If one believes in predestination, which I tend to, then I suppose you could say I was born saved, since God had already decided it. I am confused.

Hi Jami, and welcome to the forum!

One big issue here is whether or not one is born a christian. (is that the same as covenant theology??). If so, why the need to be ‘born again’?

As far as I know noone here has suggested anyone can be born Christian (or born in a right relationship with God). However one part of CT is that some of the benefits of the covenant(s) are given to those born into Christian families, though I don’t understand the details of it all.

Also, is the baptist practice of infant dedication not similar to infant baptism, if one thinks of baptism of a sign of inclusion?

As I understand it, they are very different. Baptist parents may dedicate their children to God and make a commitment to raise them well, but there wouldn’t be any suggestion that the children are part of the covenant or receive any such benefits.

Is there some extra spiritual protection of a child if they are baptised, or some danger if they are not? Does a child or infant who has not been baptised dies go to hell??

I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t think there is any further protection of baptised children. If anything it could give them a dangerous false assurance.

If one believes in predestination, which I tend to, then I suppose you could say I was born saved, since God had already decided it.

As I commented on Geoff’s blog:

Someone who God has elected to salvation is not part of God’s family until they decide for themselves to accept Jesus as their saviour and lord. Romans 8:9 makes this clear I think. Faith, salvation, receiving the spirit and being adopted as God’s children all go together.

Noone is born in a right relationship with God, noone is born indwelt by the spirit and noone is born saved. (Though I believe all young children will be saved in God’s mercy if they die young.)

I am confused.

As am I, but at least you’re honest ;)

If one believes in predestination, which I tend to, then I suppose you could say I was born saved, since God had already decided it. I am confused.

Hi Jami. Was Saul of Tarsus always saved because he was elect? Was Cornelius the centurion always saved because he was elect?

Not according to Acts. In the case of both men, despite them being highly devout believers in God, they are represented as having undergone a change of status after hearing the message.

Take Paul’s account of Ananias’s words to him as an example

Acts 22:14-16 ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.  16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

And note Peter’s words to Cornelius

Acts 10:43 everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

and what the angel said to him

Acts 11:13-14 ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

God ordains both the end result [our salvation] but also the means [our hearing the message, being regenerated by his Spirit and responding to the message].

Before this, we are already condemned and under God’s judgment, like everyone else, both elect and non-elect.

Dan Baynes - 23 July 2008 05:45 PM

One complaint Baptists have often made is that arguments for IB are much too complicated - they’re looking for something that you could give a new Christian to show that their own young ‘uns should be baptised as well.  Well, judging by Michael’s posts it seems that neither side has a monopoly on complication!

I’m fairly certain Baptists would not be using Michael’s arguement !