The Proper Recipients of Baptism

The Proper Recipients of Baptism

Introduction

From the time of the Reformation, the dispute has risen, sometimes to fever pitch, regarding the proper recipients of Christian baptism. The magisterial reformer, John Calvin, gave theological expression to the protestant practice of infant baptism, and on the other hand, the radical reformers argued that believer’s baptism is the proper expression of baptism in the Christian era. Today the debate still continues, and while it is regarded as a more intramural debate than it has in previous generations, it still is an important issue that calls each generation to seek the Scriptures to see if these things are so. This paper seeks to present a case for believers as the only proper recipients of baptism. As will be seen, the underlying issues center around the nature of the church and its continuity or discontinuity with the old covenant.

Statement of Positions

The positions discussed in this paper are (1) infant baptism, commonly referred to as paedobaptism (also household baptism or oikobaptism), and (2) believer’s baptism, commonly referred to as credobaptism.1 Paedobaptists believe that children born into families with at least one believing parent should be baptized as an infant. Alternatively, credobaptists believe that only upon a credible profession of faith should a person be baptized, thus excluding infants from the waters of baptism. Paedobaptists and credobaptists, while having a significant disagreement on the recipients of baptism still agree that baptism is not a saving action and neither contributes to salvation or regeneration.2

Limiting the Scope

Due to the limited length of this paper, a number of limitations should be recognized before the arguments are considered. Notions of baptism mentioned here stay within the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition. In addition, arguments of consequence will not be discussed (e.g., if credobaptism is true, there seems to be no place for children. Or, if paedobaptism is true, children have a false sense of assurance and they will not be called to repentance). The mode of baptism, while relevant to this topic, will also not be discussed. And finally, arguments from history will not be used here.3 The Scripture is the agreed upon final authority for both the paedo and credobaptist, so it is to Scripture alone that will be the source of appeal.4

Defining Baptism5

Murray, a paedobaptist, defines baptism as “the sign and seal of membership in Christ’s body, the church.”6 McCune, a credobaptist, similarly says water baptism “signifies and symbolizes incorporation or identification [to Christ] and…is an initiatory rite into the visible expression of the body of Christ—the local church.”7 While there may be quibbles over particulars, both paedobaptists and credobaptists can come to a general agreement over the definition of baptism as an initiatory rite.8 Murray’s definition will be sufficient for this paper.9

The Case For Infant Baptism

The case for infant baptism is not so much an exegetical one in the sense that there are certain texts that explicitly teach it or give a clear example. It is primarily a theological argument. Murray says “an express command or a proven instance is not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient. What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the church of God as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture.”10 With this in mind, Murray succinctly states the argument for infant baptism: “The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.”11

Booth is helpful when he provides the following summation:12

  1. Covenant Theology. Throughout the Bible, God relates to his people by way of a covenant of grace. Covenant theology provides the basic framework for rightly interpreting Scripture.
  2. Continuity of the Covenant of Grace. The Bible teaches one and the same way of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments, despite some different outward requirements.
  3. Continuity of the People of God. Since there is one covenant of grace between God and man, there is one continuous people of God (the church) in the Old and New Testaments.
  4. Continuity of the Covenant Signs. Baptism is the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, just as circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament.
  5. Continuity of Households. Whole households are included in God’s redemptive covenant.

These points will be narrowed to three for this paper: 1) the continuity between old and new covenant people; 2) the continuity of the household or genealogical principle; and 3) the continuity between circumcision and baptism. These three continuity arguments will be examined and critiqued in turn.

1. Continuity Between Old and New Covenant People

The argument of paedobaptism is based primarily on the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.13 This section will examine the argument of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the old and new covenants.14 Generally, both Old and New Testaments have an initiatory sign or rite. The Abrahamic covenant established the sign of the OT as circumcision and this covenant sign was given to the male children of the covenant when they were eight days old (Gen 17:9–14). In the NT the initiatory rite is baptism (Matt 28:19). Both of these signs are outward signs, that do not grant what they signify, but are an outward rite of entrance into the “covenant community.”

It is obvious that circumcision in the OT was given to those who were not able to profess faith. This principle, of administering the covenant sign to infants (specifically, male infants who were eight days old), is nowhere repealed in the New Testament.15 Berkouwer says, “Against those who asked for a direct scriptural proof in which infant baptism was divinely commanded, the Reformers courageously pointed at the injustice of this question. In response, they asked their critics precisely where the Bible says that this fundamental Covenant relation is broken in the New Covenant.”16 The fact that there is no indication that the way in which God dealt with covenant children has changed puts the burden of proof upon those who defend credobaptism to demonstrate how the covenant God changed his dealings with children.

Response

While the continuity of the Old and New Testaments is a large area of study, this response will look specifically at the nature of the “covenant community” in both the Old and New Testaments to see if the claim of continuity holds.17 What is disputed is not the fact that God’s redemptive work through the ages comes through biblical covenants. What is under dispute is that the biblical covenants are an expression of one covenant of grace.18 This one covenant of grace is the heart of covenant theology and it argues for a continuity in God’s redemptive work through the ages.19 In terms of the nature or membership of the covenant community, one would expect that covenant theologians would see a continuity in membership, that is a mixed community consisting of believers and their children—children who may or may not be elect. The emphasis on the members of the covenant being believers and their children is one of the key issues in the baptism debate, and if the new covenant was only for the elect, it would undermine the argument for infant baptism since only the elect are in the covenant and would receive the sign of the covenant. Surprisingly many covenant theologians, including the Westminster divines, recognize that the new covenant is a covenant between God and the elect only.20 However, Venema states, “These theologians, while acknowledging that the life and salvation promised in the covenant of grace are inherited only by the elect, argue that the covenant promise, together with its accompanying obligation, is extended to Abraham and his seed.”21 This is held because it is assumed that, apart from explicit biblical warrant to the contrary, the covenant of grace continues to include believers and their children.22 This concept directly relates to the nature of the church. Under this scheme, believers and their children are likewise included in the church.23 This highlights a big difference since the credobaptist sees the church (or new covenant community) comprised of regenerate, believing people, and not a mixed people like national Israel.24 If this latter view of the church is correct, then paedobaptism is likewise held to be incorrect.

The following arguments demonstrate why the nature of the new covenant community comprises regenerate, believing individuals, and is not a mixed people like national Israel. What is key to the discussion is that the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:29–34) and its fulfillment in Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb 8–10) reveal that the covenant community is not continuous and supports the credobaptist view, thus undermining the main paedobaptist argument.

First, the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:33–34:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What is important to this discussion is when God says, “they shall all know me” (Jer 31:34). This is significant since all those in the new covenant will know God—speaking of a salvific knowledge of God.25 Not only do significant structural changes result from this,26 but under the new covenant, all will be regenerate—“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33). This is held in contrast to the old covenant which was broken because of the mixed nature of the community (Jer 31:32). This means there is no remnant motif under the new covenant; it cannot be said of the new covenant community that “not all Israel was Israel” (Rom 9:6).27 The argument of Hebrews further demonstrates the supremacy of Christ’s salvific work (Heb 7:22–25; 9:15, 23–25; 10:10–18). Christ’s work entails better promises, better sacrifices, and therefore, a better covenant. His work brought full, effective, and complete salvation unlike the types and shadows of old (Heb 7–10).28 Therefore, all those in the new covenant are regenerate, not a mixed people like Israel of old.

Second, the salvific benefits of the new covenant apply to the church today, not just in the future.29 There are no unbelievers or possible covenant breakers in the new covenant today since the salvific benefits of the covenant have been enacted. Hebrews 8–10 strongly suggests this is the case, especially when it says that “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6). In this verse, “enacted” emphasizes the completed action. Wellum states, “In Christ’s coming, the new age is here, the Spirit has been poured out on the entire community, and we now experience our adoption as sons including the full forgiveness of sin (see Rom 8), even though we long for the end.”30

Finally, the NT concept of the church strongly suggests a regenerate community. The church is a community in union with Christ, born of his Spirit, raised and seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:5–6; Col 2:12–13; 3:3). The NT knows nothing of one who is “in Christ” who is not effectually called of the Father, born of the Spirit, justified, holy, and awaiting glorification.31 Given this, the sign of the new covenant age, baptism, must only be applied to those who have repented and believe. This is what is expected given the nature of the change following the work of Christ, and this is what is seen in the NT teaching and examples of baptism. Baptism is regarded as a sign that the realities of union with Christ have been applied.

2. Continuity of the Household or Genealogical Principle

The household or genealogical principle is simply a principle concerning families. That is, God’s dealings in the past dealt with families, and this principle is continuing since it is nowhere repealed in the New Testament, rather, there are definite indications that God continues to work with families.32 In Genesis 12:7 God says to Abram, “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.” In Acts 2:38–39, as Peter preaches at Pentecost he says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children.” These verses are said to support the continuity of God’s promise between a believer and their children.

The genealogical principle has additional support, passages such as Deuteronomy 7:9 say, “Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.”33 That is, his covenant is for current covenant members and their children. Wilson cites texts such as Jeremiah 32:38–40, Isaiah 59:21, and Acts 2:39 to support his claim that the new covenant promised by the prophets included children.34 Others mention the idea that the types of baptism in Scripture, e.g., the Genesis flood (1 Pet 3:20–21), and the baptism of Moses (1 Cor 10:1–2), both included families and children.35 There was Jesus’ attitude toward children (Luke 18:15–17; Mark 10:13–16; Matt 19:13–15) which speaks to the reality of their covenantal inclusion in the kingdom of God that he preached.36 Paul addressed children as saints (Eph 1:1; 6:1, 4; Col 3:20–21).37 Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that children with at least one believing parent is “holy.”38 Such evidence is weighty when considering the idea that children of believers are included in the same way as children were in the OT. This evidence, with a lack of a direct repeal of the genealogical principle, is argued to support the paedobaptist position.39

Relating this continuing genealogical principle to baptism then, is supported by the NT evidence of household baptisms (discussed in detail below). While Murray agrees that there is no explicit example of infant baptism in the NT, he says, “it would be practically impossible to believe that in none of these households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable to believe so. The infants in the households belonged to the households and would be baptized.”40

Response

Since there is no text that explicitly repeals the genealogical principle, does Scripture give us indications that the administration after the time of Christ is different than before Christ?41 In what follows, it is argued that the NT does give indications that the genealogical principle was repealed.

First, frequent references are made to Acts 2:39 “the promise is for you and your children” to support the idea that the covenant sign to be given to children.42 Interestingly, many paedobaptists do not include the rest of the verse during the discussion of this text. The full sentence reads, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (emphasis added). If the covenant sign is to be applied to children based on this text, then consistency demands it to be applied to all who are far off as well. However, Acts 2:38–39 together and in context simply do not teach such an idea. From the context, the promise is “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38), and those who receive it are ultimately “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (2:39). The promise is for all those who are called, whether Jew or Gentile, not for believer’s and their children. This text does not speak of a continuance of the genealogical principle, rather the promise is for the elect only.

Second, it must be noted that John’s baptism—while not “Christian” baptism as paedobaptists are quick to point out—was nonetheless an example of baptism functioning outside of the genealogical or household principle.43 John’s baptism is not an explicit repeal of the household principle, but he does explicitly turn away those who said “We have Abraham as our Father” (Matt 3:9). True children of Abraham bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt 3:9–10). John’s baptism also introduced the idea that baptism was, at least in this case, not applicable to infants, but only those who professed (and demonstrated) repentance and faith (Matt 3:11). While space does not permit elaboration, it must be recognized that John’s baptism provides a better exemplar to Christian baptism than does circumcision (Acts 10:34–37).

Third, the household baptisms in the NT do not support the continuation of the genealogical principle, rather upon examination they are shown to support believer’s baptism. The different household baptisms will now be examined.

Cornelius’ Household

Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:22; 11:12, 14). The text expressly states “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44; cf. 11:14–15), and in Acts 10:47 Peter baptized those who had received the Spirit. Peter refers back to Pentecost where only “those who received his word” were baptized (Acts 2:41). While it does not explicitly say there were no children in the household, those who were there “heard the word” (Acts 10:44) and were “speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:46).44 Certainly this episode does not support infant baptism, but is rather a strong indicator for believer’s baptism.

Lydia’s Household

There is not much detail concerning the baptism of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:13–15). It seems that only women were at the riverside where Lydia was converted (v. 13), and it appears that Lydia and her household were baptized at the river since after she is baptized she invites Paul back to her house to stay (v. 15). The data is inconclusive but there is no mention of children of any age, nor her husband. Certainly no one would argue that mature women would be baptized based on Lydia’s household headship. It’s more likely that the women with her at the riverbank were of her household and that they believed and were baptized.

The Philippian Jailer’s Household

The baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household (Acts 16:30–34) also appears to support believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.45 The jailer’s household rejoiced that he believed in God (v. 34).46 Certainly they believed as well since it would be hard to imagine that they rejected the message that Paul preached to them (v. 32) and then were baptized (v. 33) and then rejoiced that the jailer believed (v. 34). The text is clear that the entire household was baptized and the entire household rejoiced in the jailer’s faith. Infants do not rejoice over the faith of others, which would exclude their presence in this text since the entire household (the same ones who were baptized) was rejoicing. Rather, it seems clear that his household heard the word, believed, were baptized, and rejoiced.

Crispus’ Household

In Acts 18:8, it is said that Crispus “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.” Therefore, it is plain that his entire household believed and were baptized following the pattern established at Pentecost. In fact the verse continues, “And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

Stephanas’ Household

This household baptism is not in Acts, but is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:16 where Paul testifies that he baptized the household of Stephanas. Here again, there is no support for infant baptism as part of this household baptism since 1 Corinthians 16:15 (“you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”) makes it clear that the household was converted (i.e., they were believers) and “devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” Such descriptions are not applicable to infants. Again, the evidence here supports not infant baptism, but believer’s baptism.

Conclusion

In each of the cases of household baptism, there is no reason for assuming that the genealogical principle is perpetuated. Rather the pattern of belief and baptism from Pentecost continues throughout Acts and the household baptisms.

Excursus: NT Attitude Toward Children

Regardless of the lack of evidence provided by the accounts of household baptism in the NT, some respond with the idea that the NT portrays children in such a way that they are regarded as saints, and holy because of their parents’ faith. Bavinck uses this as his starting point into the argument when he states: “The validity of infant baptism depends exclusively on how Scripture regards the children of believers and hence wants us to regard them. If Scripture speaks about such children in the same way it does about adult believers, the right and hence the duty to practice infant baptism has been established.”47 Here, the NT’s attitude is examined to see if it lends support to paedobaptist beliefs.

Some argue from Matthew 18:1–6 and 19:13–15 and their parallels48 that Jesus includes little children in the kingdom of God and thus, they should not be forbidden from baptism.49 However, this cannot be sustained, as many paedobaptists even admit. In Matthew 18 Jesus is teaching that if one is to enter the kingdom, he is to enter like a child who responds to Jesus’ call.50 In Matthew 19 Jesus blesses the children but made no promise of entering the kingdom. The most that can be taken from these passages is infant blessing, not infant baptism.51

First Corinthians 7:14 is also used to defend infant baptism.52 However, when Paul says that children are “holy” through a believing parent, he does not mean that they are part of the covenant. In the same verse he says that the unbelieving spouse is “made holy.” Consistency would demand that that the unbelieving spouse should be baptized or included in the covenant since they are “made holy” just as the children are “holy.”53

Lastly, the addressing of the children in texts like Ephesians 6:1–4 as “saints” and “faithful” (Eph 1:1), would not help the paedobaptists since infants are not given instructions to obey their parents or are called faithful.54 It would seem that from the text alone that these children were confessors.55

3. Continuity Between Circumcision and Baptism

The continuity between circumcision and baptism is a key issue in establishing the practice of infant baptism. All of the paedobaptist arguments discussed thus far assume that circumcision and baptism are practically equivalent initiatory rites into their respective covenant communities and while the sign has changed, its recipients remain the same. This section will examine the arguments set forth to prove the continuity between the signs.

Berkhof flatly states, “If baptism did not take its place [as new covenant initiatory rite], then the NT has no initiatory rite.”56 If it is granted that both signs function as an initiatory rite, there are two main lines of evidence that suggest that their application function in the same manner. The first, is based on an identity in meaning between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision refers to the cutting away of sin and a change of heart, and baptism refers to the washing away of sin, and to spiritual renewal.57 What is argued is that the outward form has indeed changed, but there was no change in what the sign represents. Booth helpfully provides a number of continuities between circumcision and baptism:

Both are (1) initiatory rites; (2) signify an inward reality; (3) picture the death of the old man of sin; (3) represent repentance; (4) represent regeneration; (5) represent justification by faith; (6) represent a clean heart; (7) represent union and communion with God; (8) indicate citizenship in Israel; (9) indicate separation from the world; and both (10) can lead to either blessings or curses.58

The second line of evidence is based on a direct textual argument found in Colossians 2:11–12 which is said to clearly link baptism with circumcision. Chapell says of this verse, “These words remind us that salvation comes through faith, and also that the rite of circumcision that once signified the benefits of Abraham’s covenant has been replaced by baptism” (emphasis original).59

Response

While space limits the ability to respond to each of Booth’s ten points of similarities between circumcision and baptism, a few of these similarities will be examined here as well as some of the dissimilarities that must be kept in mind when consider the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Following this, a brief discussion on Colossians 2:11–12 will demonstrate that this text does not support baptism as the replacement of circumcision.

Similarities and Dissimilarities between Circumcision and Baptism

It must be admitted that circumcision and baptism do share certain things in common. These commonalities mostly flow from the fact that both are initiatory rites into covenants between God and man.60 One would expect many similarities in this regard, however it cannot be maintained that baptism replaces circumcision as a covenant sign or carries the same spiritual meaning.61 They should be regarded as covenantal signs tied to different covenants.

First, to maintain that a “covenant of grace” has a continuity of an initiatory sign proves dubious. There has not always been a covenant sign. God’s promise went out in Genesis 3:15, yet no covenant sign existed to mark God’s people for hundreds of years. The sign of circumcision was instituted in Genesis 17 where it is clearly tied to the Abrahamic covenant and later, the Mosaic covenant. The promises which were signified by circumcision were not only salvific (as Booth’s list seems to suggest), but included national ones, particularly the land promise, and the promise of physical descendents; it marked a nation to prepare the way for the coming Christ. This was a unique time in redemptive history. Baptism certainly does not signify these promises. Second, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for “believers and their children” since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were considered part of the covenant nation.62 That circumcision was a national sign, not a sign for believers and their children demonstrates that its meaning is not continuous with baptism, not even in a spiritual sense. Third, in the OT, physical circumcision pointed to the need of spiritual circumcision, i.e., circumcision of the heart or regeneration (Deut 30:6).63 Likewise, in Romans 2:25–29 Paul describes this same parallel. This clearly links circumcision as a type pointing to or finding fulfillment in regeneration, not baptism. Fourth, it is clear in the NT that circumcision is abrogated as a sign of membership into the people of God (Acts 15:1–35; Gal 1:6–9; 2:11–16; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:18–19).64 Unlike circumcision, baptism is not a sign of physical or national descent, nor does it anticipate gospel realities. It is a sign that signifies union with Christ and all the benefits that are associated with that union. Related to this, if the paedobaptist position were true, Paul could have easily silenced the Judaizers by saying that circumcision was unnecessary because baptism has replaced it.65

A Look at Colossians 2:11–12

The one text that appears most often to support the idea that baptism supersedes or replaces circumcision is Colossians 2:11–12:66

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This text does bring together both circumcision and baptism, however the connection is not between physical circumcision and baptism. The connection is between spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration), union with Christ and baptism.67 First, it must be noted that “by the circumcision of Christ” refers to circumcision of the heart, i.e., regeneration.68 Spiritual circumcision finds its fulfillment in being joined to Christ—the body of flesh is put off by union with Christ’s death through faith. Second, and most significant, in verse 12 it is clear that in baptism the realities of having died and made alive in Christ have already taken place: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.” This is not something that can be said of baptized infants. It seems best to conclude that in this text, as others mentioned above, physical circumcision pointed to regeneration or circumcision of the heart, whereas baptism testifies that these realities have actually occurred.69 Therefore, it is crucial to note that Christian baptism has a different meaning than circumcision, what is signified in baptism cannot be said of circumcision.70

Concluding the Case for Infant Baptism

The paedobaptist argument rests on the covenant of grace (applied to believers and their children) to provide an overarching unity which connects baptism with circumcision. However, the Abrahamic covenant was a national covenant, not one between believers and their seed. It now includes Abraham’s spiritual descendents through the true seed, Jesus Christ. In addition, contrary to what is often assumed, the Abrahamic covenant cannot be equated with the covenant of grace. Does the covenant of grace promise all believers a vast nation of physical descendents or the land of Canaan? It seems that neither the logic, nor the exegetical evidence can sustain the paedobaptist argument.71

The Case For Believer’s Baptism

It must be conceded that there is no direct command in Scripture to baptize only believers to the exclusion of believer’s children. This fact has caused some paedobaptists to accuse credobaptists of deducing their conclusions in the same manner as they do.72 While this is true to an extent, it is argued that the credobaptist position is a better deduction from Scripture given the problems with the paedobaptist position mentioned above. That is, rather than arguing from tenuous continuities between Old and New Testaments, it will be shown that there are multiple lines of evidence from both Old and New Testaments that support the credobaptist position.73 It is to these lines of evidence that this paper now turns.

1. Commands Concerning Baptism

Baptism is a NT ordinance, commanded by Christ (Matt 28:18–20). He specifically commands that disciples, i.e., converts, are to be baptized (v. 19).74 In the very next verse, Christ continues his command that these same disciples are to be taught all that he has commanded. Certainly such instructions are not applicable to infants. The same is also seen at Pentecost when Peter commands his listeners to repent and then be baptized (Acts 2:38). Again, this command cannot be applied to infants.

2. The Practice of the Early Church

This argument is not an argument from history, but an examination of the practice of baptism from its beginnings in the gospels to its expression through the book of Acts. The baptism of John seems to serve as a prototype for Christian baptism, which no one disputes was a baptism of repentance that necessarily excluded infants.75 In Acts, after Peter’s sermon at Pentecost the Scriptures are clear that “those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). This text explicitly states who were baptized that day, it was “those who received his word.” Later, when Philip preached the gospel in Samaria, “when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12; also 8:35–38).76 It is clear that throughout the early church that baptism followed the pattern established at Pentecost of people hearing the word, repenting and believing, and then being baptized.77

3. The Meaning or Symbolism of Baptism

While a full discussion of the meaning of baptism is not the purpose of this section, some brief notes on the issue are relevant to the argument concerning the recipients of baptism. Berkhof states that baptism symbolizes or “refers to the washing away of sin, Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5, and to spiritual renewal, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11, 12.”78 Granting, for the sake of argument, that Berkhof is correct in what baptism symbolizes, the NT testifies that those who have the sign of baptism, also possess what the sign signifies. For example, in Galatians 3:27 Paul says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” That is, all those who were baptized, have put on Christ. One could not say, “As many infants as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” since infants do not yet possess what the sign signifies.79 Similarly, in Romans 6:3 Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”80 Certainly, infants who have received baptism cannot be said to have also been “raised with him through faith” since they are not yet old enough to express faith for themselves. These verses clearly demonstrate that those who have the sign were already recipients of what that sign signified.81 The NT says that all those who have been baptized, have been buried with Christ, have been raised with him through faith, and have put on Christ.82 Certainly by good and necessary inference, this limits the recipients of baptism to those who possess what the sign signifies, i.e., they are those in union with Christ through faith.

Conclusion

The bulk of this paper has been arguing against the continuities seen by the paedobaptist from OT to NT. This is due to the fact that such continuity arguments can be complicated to describe and respond to. The latter portion of the paper which examines the case for believer’s baptism is relatively brief since the evidence seems clear in the NT that baptism was commanded to be practiced on disciples and the evidence (including household baptisms) support that this practice was upheld by the early church. There is evidence of certain continuities between the two Testaments, but not to the extent that is required to support the doctrine of infant baptism. Understanding the proper discontinuities and the teaching of the NT clearly demonstrates that believer’s baptism is the biblical teaching on this important Christian ordinance.

  1. Technically, paedobaptists also hold to believer’s baptism in that when an adult from outside the church comes to faith in Christ, they are baptized upon their profession of faith. This paper deals with the more common practice of baptizing infants when they are born into families with at least one believing parent.
  2. Booth, a paedobaptist, says, “The covenant sign was not an indication that those who received it were regenerated in the future. Rather, the covenant sign was God’s indication that its recipients were set apart for his special blessing and use. They therefore stood in need of cleansing, regeneration, and justification. The benefits of the covenant were to be appropriated by faith in the promised Redeemer. To be included in this gracious covenant meant to be an heir of the promise (i.e., one who should lay claim to the Redeemer). A child of the covenant had available all the benefits and privileges of this covenant, including salvation. Yet this same child of the covenant, failing to appropriate these benefits by faith, became a covenant breaker and received God’s covenant judgment instead of his covenant blessing” (Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1995], 9). See also Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 953–954.
  3. Interestingly, both sides appeal to church history to support their position. In fact, Bruce Ware (credobaptist) and Sinclair Ferguson (paedobaptist) both appeal to history in same three views volume (Bruce A Ware, “Believers’ Baptism View,” in Baptism: Three Views [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009], 47–49; Sinclair B Ferguson, “Infant Baptism View,” in Baptism: Three Views [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009], 79–84). Everett Ferguson in his massive volume concludes, “There is a general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century” (Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 856). He continues, “The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries” Ibid., 857.
  4. G. C Berkouwer, The Sacraments, trans. Hugo Bekker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 164.
  5. In an interesting monograph by Gary Crampton, he argues that that the definition of baptism in the Westminster Confession of faith is actually against the practice of infant baptism (W. Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Study of the Westminster Standards and Infant Baptism [Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2010]). He claims that the differences among paedobaptists (throughout history and even to today) on the basis of infant baptism demonstrate that it is a practice in search of a theology (ibid., 15). In support, Berkhof, a paedobaptist, says, “Reformed theologians did not all agree in the past, and are not even now all unanimous, in their representation of the ground of infant baptism” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958], 639). In seeking common ground on a definition of baptism, Crampton’s main argument will not be furthered in this paper.
  6. John Murray, Christian Baptism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 48.
  7. Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 3:274. In arguing for the credobaptist position, Millard Erickson first argues for the proper meaning of baptism and says, “Baptism is a sign of the believer’s union (death and resurrection) with Christ” (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 1110; cf. Thomas J Nettles, “Baptist View: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ’s Saving Work,” in Understanding Four Views on Baptism [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 25–26 where the same method is employed). In doing so, he argues for a meaning of baptism that would exclude the possibility of infant baptism. While agreeing with his definition, this paper seeks to establish commonality on the meaning of baptism and then to demonstrate that the paedobaptist position is incorrect.
  8. Bromiley, a paedobaptist simply says it is “the rite of Christian initiation” (EDT, s.v., Baptism, 129).
  9. One “quibble” with Murray’s definition is that Scripture does not portray baptism as a seal. The seal in the NT is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13–14; 4:30) (Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism, 33).
  10. Murray, Christian Baptism, 72. Berkhof agrees and says, “It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and that there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily make infant baptism un-Biblical” (Systematic Theology, 632). Waymeyer, arguing as a credobaptist, devotes two chapters demonstrating an absence of a direct command, and an absence of a biblical example (Matthew W Waymeyer, A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism [The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2008], 9–26).
  11. Murray, Christian Baptism, 48. Later he says, “We cannot believe that the New Testament economy is less beneficent that was the Old. It is rather the case that the New Testament gives more abundant scope to the blessing of God’s covenant. We are therefore not led to expect retraction; we are led to expect expansion and extension” (ibid., 53).
  12. Booth, Children of the Promise, 8. With similar arguments, Berkhof’s list includes six points: 1) Spiritual covenant with Abraham with circumcision as its sign and seal; 2) The covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the “new covenant” of the present dispensation; 3) Infants received circumcision as a sign and seal (certainly their exclusion would not be expected in a new covenant, such would require a very explicit statement to that effect); 4) baptism is substituted for circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace; 5) the missionary period of the apostolic age accounts for the emphasis on adult baptism; 6) the argument from church history (Systematic Theology, 632–635). Similarly, Reymond argues “from three undeniable biblical truths: 1) infant males received the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under its Old Testament administration; 2) the covenant of grace has a continuity and organic unity; the people of God are essentially one in all ages; and 3) one can find no repeal in the New Testament of the Old Testament command to place the sign of the covenant of grace upon covenant children” (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 944).
  13. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 937.
  14. There is debate among dispensationalists about how exactly the church relates to the new covenant (see Michael D. Stallard, John R. Master, Dave Fredrickson, Roy E. Beacham, Elliott E. Johnson, Rodney J. Decker, and Bruce Compton, Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant [Schaumburg, Ill: Regular Baptist Books, 2012]). This paper assumes that the new covenant was inaugurated at the death of Christ and will be consummated at his return, therefore the church is the new covenant people of God. Other positions that hold to an entirely future new covenant that is strictly for national Israel would have a slightly different argument than presented here. For a brief description on how baptists who do not hold to covenant theology vs. those who do differ on their response to paedobaptism see Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water that Divides: Two Views on Baptism Explored (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2008), 56–60. For an extended treatment from one who agrees with covenant theology, see Fred A Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2007). For an extended treatment from one who disagrees with covenant theology, see Thomas R Schreiner and Shawn D Wright, eds., Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B & H, 2006). For a treatment from a dispensational perspective, see Waymeyer, A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism.
  15. Reymond says, “The Old Testament practice of reckoning children among the covenant people of God and having the covenant sign administered to them in infancy is nowhere repealed in the New Testament” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 940). This is a common remark that is found in nearly all paedobaptist literature.
  16. Berkouwer, The Sacraments, 175.
  17. Much of what follows is based on the excellent article by Stephen Wellum (“Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R Schreiner and Shawn D Wright, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology [Nashville: B & H, 2006]). The continuity between God’s dealings with children (or households) and the continuity between circumcision and baptism is discussed more fully below.
  18. “The new covenant is but a new—though more glorious—administration of the same covenant of grace” (Booth, Children of the Promise, 9).
  19. This is seen in the names given the covenant community. Israel and the church are used interchangeably in both Old and New Testaments (ibid., 73).
  20. “In the strictest sense of the covenant as a saving communion with God, the parties of the covenant of grace are the triune God and his elect people” (Cornelis P Venema, “Covenant Theology and Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003], 212).
  21. Ibid., 214. Berkhof refers to this as the “dual aspect” of the covenant (Systematic Theology, 272–89).
  22. Booth, Children of the Promise, 10.
  23. Ibid., 73.
  24. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 113.
  25. This interpretation is denied by some paedobaptists (e.g., Jeffery D Niell, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003], 153, n 37). Most, however, recognize that the knowledge referred to here is salvific in nature (e.g., Richard L Pratt, “Infant Baptism and the New Covenant,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003], 159–60).
  26. The priesthood of all believers is now a fitting term to describe the church; a much different structure from the hierarchal structure of the old covenant community. Space prevents elaboration, but see Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 141–44.
  27. James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Part I,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1, no. 2 (July 2004): 160; James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Part II,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 88.
  28. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 145; White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Part I,” 147.
  29. Pratt argues for an already-not yet nature for the salvific benefits of the new covenant. He says that in the future, at the consummation, all in the new covenant will be saved, but this is not present in the new covenant community today. In response, Hebrews 8–10 does not leave this option available. The author of Hebrews establishes the reality of the new covenant in the church without hinting that a regenerate community is yet future. For a full response to Pratt, see White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Part II,” 97–103.
  30. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 147.
  31. Ibid., 148–49. See also Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 840–50.
  32. Reymond says, “since the new covenant is characterized by greater, not lesser, privilege and blessing, one would expect some definite word if the established practice (1900 years in place) was supposed to be discontinued. What one finds instead of repeal are definite indications that God continues to work within the solidarity of the family covenant relationship” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 940).
  33. Doug Wilson’s book uses this repeated biblical phrase “to a thousand generations” as the title of his book on infant baptism. He argues based on the continuity of the family or genealogical principle in God’s covenant dealings with man (Douglas Wilson, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism: Covenant Mercy for the People of God [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996]).
  34. Ibid., 13–14.
  35. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 943; Geoffrey William Bromiley, Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 16.
  36. Murray, Christian Baptism, 62–66; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 941.
  37. Murray, Christian Baptism, 66–67; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 943.
  38. Murray, Christian Baptism, 67–68; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 942–43.
  39. Ferguson says, “the abrogation of the ‘you and your seed’ principle would require a decisive and specific announcement. Indeed, in the light of the integral relationship between covenant and the seed principle, it may be asked whether it could be abandoned and covenantal administration itself remain” (“Infant Baptism View,” 103). However, by defining what he would accept as sufficient evidence, (“a decisive and specific announcement”), he apriori rules out the evidences the Scriptures do provide. This is a common feature on this topic in paedobaptist literature. It also directly violates Murray’s claim (see footnote 12) that not all Scripture’s teachings are directly stated. In this regard, Ferguson cannot have it both ways.
  40. Murray, Christian Baptism, 69. Reymond, however, counters Murray’s zeal on this point and says, “I would counsel that the paedobaptist should not put much weight on these ‘household baptisms,’ for even if he could convince the antipaedobaptist that in these cases the believer’s household was baptized on the basis of the believer’s faith, while such a view surely underscores the covenant character of the Christian family, he cannot prove that any of these households had infants or small children in them” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 942).
  41. Differences in opinion on the nature of continuity versus discontinuity rage. Wellum interestingly points out that both dispensationalists and paedobaptists use similar continuity arguments with regard to the promises given to Abraham. Dispensationalists hold that the promise of land is irrevocable and paedobaptists hold that the genealogical principle (to Abraham and his seed) is irrevocable (see Peter John Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012], 62–63). For example, paedobaptist Doug Wilson says God’s promise to Abraham was irrevocable (To a Thousand Generations, 115).
  42. Murray, Christian Baptism, 70–71; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 940; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 633.
  43. See Nettles, “Baptist View: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ’s Saving Work,” 27.
  44. Malone notes, “Only those people who were listening to the message received baptism as a sign of the Abrahamic promise of the Spirit upon Gentiles (Galatians 3:14)” (The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 123).
  45. Chapell understands this instance to be the clearest case in demonstrating the paedobaptist case. He argues that the jailer alone believed, yet his household was baptized (Why Do We Baptize Infants? [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2006], 18–19).
  46. Some translations (e.g., NASB, NIV) translate Acts 16:35 that all the household believed with the jailer. Whereas the ESV translates it that all the household rejoiced with the jailer because he believed. The translation of the ESV is preferred here (see Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 124). The jailer’s household rejoiced that he came to faith in God. In the end, neither translations helps the paedobaptist understanding of the text, in fact the NASB and NIV make it explicit that believer’s baptism is what is happening here.
  47. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 525–26. Bromiley starts his discussion in the same manner and says, “The presence of children in the New Testament Church (Ephesians, 1 John) takes on a new significance against the background of the fact that ‘little ones’ are also numbered among the covenant people of the Old Testament. If the covenant is essentially the same, the children of believing Christians, by right of their descent, belong to the covenant community from the very first, and are entitled to its sign” (“The Case For Infant Baptism,” Christianty Today, October 1964, 7).
  48. Matt 18:1–10 (with parallels Mark 9:33–37; Luke 9:46–48); Matt 19:13–5 (with parallels Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17)
  49. Murray, Christian Baptism, 62–66.
  50. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 140–41.
  51. Ibid., 141–43. Murray admits that these text do not provide proof or a command of infant baptism, but they “supply us with certain principles which lie close to the argument for infant baptism” (emphasis added) (Christian Baptism, 65). “Lie close” does not seem near sufficient for an instituted ordinance.
  52. Murray, Christian Baptism, 67–68; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 942–43.
  53. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R Schreiner and Shawn D Wright, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B & H, 2006), 95–96. Schreiner suggests that this means that the possibility of their salvation is enhanced simply because they have believing parents. See Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 131–38 for a full discussion.
  54. Murray, Christian Baptism, 66–67; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 941, 43.
  55. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 11.
  56. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 634.
  57. Ibid. Chapell explains, “While the covenant continues, its sign changes to reflect what God has done to maintain his promises. The bloody sign of circumcision that prefigured the shedding of Christ’s blood no longer remains appropriate after the Lamb of God has shed his blood once for all in order to remove our sin. Therefore, New Testament believers receive a new sign for the covenant that indicates what Christ has accomplished for them. Baptism with water is the sign of the washing away of our sin” (Why Do We Baptize Infants?, 13).
  58. Booth, Children of the Promise, 181. Booth provides the following scriptures to support each point: (1) Gen 17:10–11; Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 8:12–13; (2) Rom 2:28–29; Col 2:11–12; Phil 3:3; (3) Rom 6:3–7; Col 2:11–12; (4) Jer 4:4; 9:25; Lev 26:40–41; Acts 2:38; (5) Rom 2:28–29; Titus 3:5; (6) Rom 4:11–12; Col 2:11–14; (7) Deut 10:16; 30:6; Isa 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5–7; (8) Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5–6; Deut 7:6; Heb 8:10; (9) Gen 17:4; Gal 3:26–29; Eph 2:12–13; 4:5; and (10) Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 10:1–12; 11:28–30. Waldron keenly notes that paedobaptists argue for a unity between baptism and circumcision (like Booth’s list), but assume their identity to make their argument (Samuel E Waldron, Biblical baptism: A Reformed Defense of Believers’ Baptism [Grand Rapids: Truth for Eternity Ministries, 1998], 29–33).
  59. Bryan Chapell, “A Pastoral View of Infant Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003), 17.
  60. However, even as initiatory rites, they still have discontinuities. The first dissimilarity is in the recipients of circumcision compared with the recipients of baptism. The sign of circumcision was only given to males, whereas baptism applies to both male and female. Murray responds, “It is, however, altogether consonant with the extension of grace and the expansion of privilege revealed in the NT that a sign should be chosen in the new economy that could be dispensed to females just as well as to males” (Christian Baptism, 75–76). This seems logical, except that this is no where stated or implied in Scripture. Such a significant change to the application of the initiatory right into the community, considering most else remains the same, would seem to need an explicit warrant. After all, this is the same requirement demanded of credobaptists who propose a change in the application of the sign.
  61. While not agreeing entirely with all of Booth’s language, certainly we realize that neither covenant sign is effective apart from faith; that they are initiatory rites into the covenant community; that they testify to God’s promise of righteousness by faith; and that they signify some kind of union with Christ.
  62. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 156
  63. Wellum notes that the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:33 combined with Ezekiel 36:25–27 point forward to the day when the entire covenant community would be circumcised in the heart.
  64. Wellum says, “In Christ, the previous covenants have come to fulfillment, and, as such, the covenant sign of circumcision is no longer necessary; it has served its purpose” (“Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 156).
  65. This argument, while simple, holds much weight. Certainly Acts 15 would be a likely place to associate physical circumcision with infant baptism. See Ware, “Believers’ Baptism View,” 46–47.
  66. In fact, the book The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003) cites the passage 17 times to support the relation between circumcision and baptism. For a fuller treatment, see the following: George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 152–60; Richard C. Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 3–23.
  67. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” 158.
  68. Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians & Philemon (Nashville: B & H, 2010), 91–92. O’Brien argues that “by the circumcision of Christ” may refer to his death: “putting off the body of the flesh,” cf. 1:22 where the same phrase is used that way (Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1982], 116–17). Harris’ argument seems to make better sense in this case (see Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12,” 10 for a discussion on this point).
  69. Barcellos makes this clear in his excellent article “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12.”
  70. Salter says, “the exegesis shows that spiritual circumcision and baptism do not signify precisely the same realities. Baptism includes spiritual circumcision [putting off the old man] but also signifies more, namely, burial and resurrection” (Martin Salter, “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12,” Themelios 35, no. 1 [April 2010]: 28).
  71. Waldron’s excellent treatment discusses these elements in more detail (Waldron, Biblical Baptism, 37–39).
  72. Reymond says, “Just as there is no direct command to baptize these children and to treat them as ‘little Christians,’ so also antipaedobaptists must acknowledge that there is no direct command ‘Baptize only those who themselves make a personal profession of faith.’ Their restriction on baptism, then, only to those who can and do make a credible profession of faith in Christ is as much a deduction from Scripture as is the paedobaptist’s practice” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 936). Venema also puts both groups on the same ground by saying that “both sides of the debate, ironically, employ a kind of argument from silence to make their case” (“Covenant Theology and Baptism,” 202).
  73. The argument from the nature of the church (as in Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907], 945) will not be mentioned here but the distinction between the OT and NT and the fact that the church is a regenerate people has been stated in arguing against paedobaptism above.
  74. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 274–75.
  75. Ware, “Believers’ Baptism View,” 23–25.
  76. The example of household baptisms also support the premise that only those who believed were baptized. See discussion above.
  77. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 970; McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 275. See Robert H. Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R Schreiner and Shawn D Wright, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B & H, 2006), 35–66 for a complete discussion.
  78. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 634.
  79. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 970.
  80. And Colossians 2:12 was already mentioned above, it says “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
  81. Some may object at this point that these verses are not referring to water baptism. For a good discussion on why these texts (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) speak of water baptism, see Douglas J Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 359–60; Thomas R Schreiner, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 256–57.
  82. Peter also speaks of the symbol of baptism and how it applies to one who is truly saved (1 Pet 3:21–22). He explicitly states that those who have been baptized are saved. He’s not denying justification by faith alone, but as partaking in the Lord’s Supper is to identify that the blood of Christ atones for personal sin, so too does baptism identify the person with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. See Nettles, “Baptist View: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ’s Saving Work,” 36–38 for a fuller discussion.