From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism Book Review: Part 2

In this second part of my review of the W. Gary Crampton’s, “From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism” I will speak on the next three chapters.

Chapter 4
In this chapter, Crampton begins discussing the relationship between circumcision and baptism and states that there is no place in Scripture is it declared that baptism replaced circumcision. He makes a couple arguments of “if there were a time when this point could have been made…” or “why didn’t he say…” which I’m really not fond of so I won’t be commenting on those.

Crampton later says, “to assert that children of believing parents in the New Covenant era should be baptized because the male children in Israel were circumcised, is to be guilty of reading the Old Testament in the New.” With this I would agree, if this were the sole argument for infant baptism. Seeing this point though as only part of the argument and how it relates to the overall covenantal structure of redemption gives more credence to the paedobaptist view.

He then goes on to explain how circumcision was not restricted to those who made a genuine profession of faith and how the entire nation was circumcised in one day without any concern for personal faith (Joshua 5:2-9). What he ultimately is getting at in this portion of his book is that today (most) paedobaptists would not claim that if you had a butler or maid living in your household, you should baptize them. Nor would you wait until the eighth day to baptize your child or your unbelieving 13-year-old child. All these were done under circumcision in the Abrahamic Covenant. Also related to this, if baptism replaces circumcision then why should be baptize females?

Crampton then mentions one of the critical disagreements between paedobaptists and credobaptists and that is the idea that throughout the majority of the Old Covenant community, “knowing the Lord” was not a requirement to membership in the covenant. The Old Covenant was a breakable covenant, while the New Covenant is unbreakable. The non-believers under the Old Covenant were a part of Israel de jure (by law), while unbelievers under the New Covenant may exist in the church, but only de facto (by practice).

What follows logically in this argument would be why children should be included into the church de facto, which I’m not going to get into at this time.

The author then argues that circumcision, among other things, was a mark which gave members of the Abrahamic Covenant a right to their inheritance of the land of Canaan. The fact that the sign was administered to the male reproductive organ conveys the idea that the inheritance was passed on through the generations by physical birth. Notice how a man who suffered damage to his sexual organs was not allowed to join the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:1). Inheritance was passed down through the male progeny which is why this sign was given to males.

Again, circumcision was more than just a sign of the covenant for a physical land.

Let’s look at what Paul has to say on the matter. In Romans 4:16-17 he writes, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, As it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations…’”  Here, the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is salvation by grace thru faith. Paul repeats this thought in Galatians 3:8. “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed.” According to Paul, the Abrahamic Covenant was the gospel preached beforehand to Abraham. The fulfillment of the covenant promise, “In you shall all nations be blessed,” is the justifying of the heathen by grace through faith. Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the Abrahamic Covenant was more than just a mere land deal. This could be expounded upon so much more but I intent not to do so.

Crampton then proceeds to state that baptism is no where called a seal and that the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. If I’m not mistaken I believe I’ve heard James White make this case in his debate with Bill Shishko. It’s a very good debate and I highly recommend it. You can find it on the AOMin website http://vintage.aomin.org/BaptismDeb.html

To explain how paedobaptists affirm baptism as a seal, I think the best explanation comes from Thomas M’Crie’s “Lectures on Christian Baptism”,

Be pleased, then, to mark the sense in which we understand the word seal as applied to baptism. The term is used in three senses in Scripture. The first is in the sense of security, as when a person seals a letter. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.” (2 Tim. ii. 19.) The second is in the sense of distinction, as when a merchant puts his seal on his goods to appropriate and distinguish them. “In whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” (Eph. i. 13.) The third is in the sense of confirmation, as when a seal is affixed to a charter or bargain. “And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.” (Neh. ix. 38.)

Now, in applying the term seal to the ordinance of baptism, it is not either in the first or second senses here noticed that we are to understand it. It is not used in the sense of securing the person, or of distinguishing him from others. Baptism is not an assurance of salvation to any, or a pledge of sonship. In this sense it is the Spirit alone that is the seal of God’s people. It is in the third sense only, namely, in that of the confirmation of a deed, that we use the term in relation to baptism. It is the seal which God has been pleased to append to the charter of his covenant. It is not like the signet which Pharaoh put on the hand of Joseph as a badge of distinction, or like the ring put on the hand of the penitent prodigal in token of acceptance; it is rather like the signet by which King Ahasuerus sealed the letters which saved the Jews from destruction.

Thus, while baptism viewed as a symbol has a relation to the grace of the covenant, viewed as a seal it stands related to the covenant itself. We must carefully distinguish between the grace of the covenant, and the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign, but it is not, properly or directly, the seal of regeneration; it symbolizes the blessing, but it seals the covenant. By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented. The distinction is very obvious. As a symbol, the ordinance addresses itself to the senses; as a seal, it appeals to faith. As a symbol, it is a badge of distinction from the world; as a seal, it stands related, not to the person, but to the covenant. A seal implies something spoken or written; and the design of baptism as a seal, is to confirm the faith of the Church in God’s written Word, in his everlasting covenant with her. It is the visible pledge added to the verbal promise. And where is the inconsistency of supposing that God may ratify his word by an outward symbol? Has he not “confirmed his promise by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation?” And why not also confirm it by a seal? All bonds and covenants are thus confirmed, and God never made a covenant yet without a seal. The tree of life was the seal of Adam’s covenant, the rainbow was the seal of Noah’s, circumcision was the seal of Abraham’s, and baptism is the seal of Christ’s.

In accordance, therefore, with the very design of a sacrament, as well as with the uniform doctrine of the primitive church and of our reformers, we maintain that baptism is not merely a symbol of spiritual grace, but is the seal of God’s holy covenant. And remember it is God’s seal. It is not the baptizer’s, nor the baptized’s, but God’s only. Its validity is independent of man’s act. God delivers the promise signed and sealed, presenting it to all, and saying, “Here is my salvation: behold the seal of the King!” And there it stands, sealed and sure, whether we accept or reject it. “If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself.”

This portion of my review has turned out much longer than I had anticipated. I had hoped to discuss the next three chapters of the book in this one post but I’m only halfway through discussing some key points found in only one chapter! I will continue this review at a later date. Check back later this week for more.

From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism Book Review: Part 1

This is the first of my book reviews and I’m not sure how it will turn out; I’m not so great of a writer. I don’t mean for this review to exhaust the book in its entirety, but rather highlight on some of the main points the author provides and my interactions with these ideas.

From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism
by W. Gary Crampton

Chapter 1
Crampton points out that there are no expressed commands in the New Testament to baptize infants nor is there any record of such a clear case. Of course it is argued by many paedobaptists that household baptisms included infants but there is no concrete support for that. There are however explicit commands to baptize those who profess Christ in the New Testament.

Without an express command to baptize infants, to do so would violate the Reformed belief of the regulative principle, which states that the only acceptable worship of God is restricted to what is expressed within the Scriptures and is not subject to the ways we may come up with to worship him. For example, one church I went to years ago conducted a worship service playing the game “Simon” with the attendees who each had one of four different colors of glow sticks.

Among paedobaptists, there are multiple differences as to why infants should be baptized. I know I have heard arguments approached from different angles. There is a great quote from J.M. Pendleton summing up some of the many different reasons,

How contradictory! How antagonistic! It seems that infants are baptized that they may be saved – that they may be regenerated – because they have faith – because their parents are believers – because they are involved in original sin – and because they are holy – because they ought to be brought into the church – and because they are in the church by virtue of their birth – and because of their “personal connection” with Christ, in consequence of His assumption of human nature.

Shouldn’t so many different arguments for this practice of infant baptism be even more reason to question its validity?

Chapter 2
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines baptism as follows,

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

By this definition, paedobaptists declare that they confess their faith in baptism, yet give this sign to their infants without any confession. Again, they declare baptism to be a sacrament of faith and penitence yet grant it to those infants who have neither. Even better they call baptism a sign of profession, yet give it to infants who make no profession.

Chapter 3
A sacrament is defined by the Westminster Shorter Catechism as

“a sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the New Covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.”

Crampton goes on to questions this by asking if this to be applied to believers, then why should we baptize infants who have never professed belief? I feel that Crampton actually misunderstands this definition. From what I’ve heard from many paedobaptists say (and maybe even some credobaptists) the benefits of the New Covenant may be applied to the unregenerate as a sign, but avails nothing if not a true believer. If one is a true believer then the benefits of the baptism are truly applied. I would take the phrase, “applied to believers” to be in reference to the benefits, not the sacrament in this definition.

It is also helpful to note that water baptism is a New Testament sacrament, therefore we should look to the New Testament when studying this sacrament. This is the approach we take on the studying the Lord’s Supper even though the Old Testament ordinance of Passover was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper.

One argument I’ve heard on infant baptism is that in this New Covenant, which is more inclusive than the old, why would you forbid the children of the covenant members from receiving this sign of a more inclusive covenant when they were previously included in the old? Well, could you not say the same thing with the Lord’s Supper? This is the covenant meal of the more inclusive covenant, yet participation in this meal is more restrictive than Passover was. There is no positive or direct command in the New Testament to include infants or small children in this covenant meal. In fact, there is clear biblical mandate to examine oneself before partaking of the sacrament lest he eat and drink unworthily and bring judgment on himself.

If these conditions are enough for the regulation of the participants in the Lord’s Supper, why then would it not be good enough to regulate the participants of baptism?

B.B. Warfield, Louis Berkhof, and John Calvin are all in agreement that there is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament to support infant baptism. But shouldn’t there be if it is true that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed? Shouldn’t the Old Testament be read in light on the New?