Examining FOUR Popular Arguments for Infant Baptism

[@pastorpitman]

Agreed. The first question is, “Why baptize?”

[@thebiblesojourner]

Very important to understand what we're talking about!

[@dannyswirsky9002]

Great video, I enjoy them all. One point about covenant theology that I haven't seen anyone bring up is the use of language concerning covenants. Covenant Theologians will often use terms like "covenant children", "covenant families", "member of a covenant", "person in the covenant", etc. The Bible never uses these phrases. In fact, it almost never uses the term covenant as an adjective at all. I think the reason is that Covenant Theologians think a covenant is primarily a type of relationship, whereas the biblical usage is really that a covenant is a type of oath.

[@theocratickingdom30]

Exactly! They are forced to change the meaning of the word covenant and how it is used in Scripture.

[@thebiblesojourner]

That's a really good point. I wonder how they would respond to that observation. I'm going to bring that up to some of my friends and see what they think. I know I haven't thought of that before, but it is an on-point observation. Thank you for sharing it!

[@dannyswirsky9002]

@@thebiblesojourner I'd love to hear what they think! Keep up the good work.

[@boaz63]

Add to the above: “Covenant renewal service” vs. Worship service - I often wonder, “Which of the Biblical covenants are you renewing?” 🤔🙏

[@dannyswirsky9002]

@@Cattleman16479 Can you share the quote of the verse that includes one of those exact phrases? I don't see it in my translation. Keep in mind I am making a point about the exact construction of phrases. I don't dispute that covenants can apply to families or children or that someone can be "in" a covenant. I'm just making a point about how language is used and how that might reveal a difference in a presupposition, namely, the definition of a covenant.

[@theocratickingdom30]

The biggest issue for reformed theology is this: 1. You can look at scripture through the lens of the covenants actually named in the bible. or 2. Through the lens of covenants nowhere named in the bible. Which makes more sense?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Well, now you just seem to be making a little too much sense!

[@andresescruceria9550]

Yes a episode on circumcision can you post your friend thesis on circumcision too. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

[@empese1127]

I keep getting all these promises of future episodes, I pray they'll be delivered 😂. Thanks again, this was great.

[@thebiblesojourner]

May the Lord make it so 🤣 I am planning to do the Ezekiel sacrificial system one soon! That one got bumped way up on the list 😛

[@boaz63]

It would seem obvious that those who say the New Covenant is not a new covenant but a “renewal” of an Old Covenant would be the wrong ones. When God Himself says He is going to make a New Covenant, and then literally says that the New Covenant will be “Not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Jer. 31:32), why can’t we just take His word for it, instead of presuming to correct Him?

[@thebiblesojourner]

It seems obvious to me! But in their defense the word “new” could hypothetically mean renewal… it’s just the “”not like the covenant I made with their fathers” which seems unavoidable. Thanks for watching my friend.

[@carolberubee]

I don't understand why learned Biblical scholars think that _ekklesia_ is a technical term. I see it at Acts 19:32, 39, 41 as simply an assembly, even a "mob" in v. 32. Is this a matter of willful ignorance? If we could just get them to concede this one point, maybe we could make some headway?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Great observations pointing out Acts 19 as an example. It sure would be nice, but I doubt there will be a concession on this point, but we can always hope!

[@torcoffee2747]

Look forward to this, I just got your book

[@thebiblesojourner]

Looking forward to your thoughts on the episode and on the book!

[@torcoffee2747]

I may have some questions!

[@TheRomans6]

Fantastic analysis!

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for watching my friend!

[@krisandnatpierce8993]

I have some more questions to follow up from my last comments: The Early Church was predominantly Jewish for a while after Pentecost. Were these Jews part of Israel or the Church? Weren't they a part of both groups? Weren't the apostles and other disciples a believing remnant within Israel? Initially the Church was mostly made up of New Covenant, believing Israelites. So, this means that the Church, being rooted in the Jewish Messiah promised in the Old Testament, started out as a Jewish remnant. Does this not make strict distinctions between Israel and the Church problematic? Can we not distinguish between Israel(a nation through whom the Christ has come) and the Church (the New Covenant, transnational Body of Messiah), without separating them? How can we separate them when they are so connected? Is this not what is shown to us when Paul uses the olive tree metaphor? Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree along with believing Jews. He does not say that the Church is grafted in, but Gentiles. He indicates that there is still a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and yet there is one olive tree. Your thoughts?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Really good thoughts again. I tried to be much more thorough in my previous comment, but time limits me here. I will just say that there is certainly *not* as much distinction as some people present it. But the "root" itself in Romans 11 doesn't have to be understood to be Israel. In fact, I think many commentators are prone to take it as the promises to Abraham (i.e., the Abrahamic covenant). The Abrahamic covenant always promised to bless the nations (as distinct national identities--ie they didn't have to convert to being Jewish). So, yes we can acknowledge the same source/fount of blessing but at the same time the OT and NT seem to predict that national identities remain (e.g., Isa 2, 19, 49, 56; Zech 14; etc.).

[@krisandnatpierce8993]

This episode on baptism has me thinking about the relationship between Israel and the Church. I am a Christian in a Reformed Baptist Church. As Peter says here, Reformed Baptists see the covenant of grace as basically equivalent to the New Covenant. So, basically Reformed Baptists try to ground the covenant of works and the covenant of grace in the Scriptures. Correct me if I am wrong, but Calvinist Dispensationalists and Reformed Baptists have a lot more in common than they have differences. It seems to me that Reformed Baptist theology sees the covenant of grace almost as the New Covenant blessings and benefits reaching back in time to be applied to believers in the old covenant and reaching forward to be applied to believers throughout the church age. The work of Christ is applied to believers in all ages. That is basically what we mean by covenant of grace. Since we Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic Dispensationalists have so much in common, let me ask a few questions to help me clarify some things in my own mind: 1. Since salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in all ages, and this is only found in Christ and His work, then do you agree that there is only one spiritual people of God throughout the ages? (I personally don't believe that distinguishing between ethnic, national, territorial Israel and the Church necessitates a belief that there are two peoples of God on two different tracks). 2. Would you be comfortable calling regenerate believers in both the old and new covenants (the church universal/invisible) "spiritual Israel"? If Paul can say, "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel..."( Romans 9:6), does this not indicate that Paul is distinguishing between two ways of talking about "Israel"? 3. If Paul is indeed distinguishing faithful Israelites who have faith from those that are simply descendants of Abraham, then why is it illegitimate to talk about Spiritual Israel and Physical Israel? Why do Dispensationalists have a problem with saying that the Church is, in a sense, Spiritual Israel? We can still maintain that God's promises to ethnic, national, and territorial Israel will still be fulfilled when there is a national salvation/restoration Of Israel before or at the return of the Lord Jesus. 4. Do you believe that Jewish believers who are living during the Tribulation are part of the nation Israel AND a part of Christ's Body, The Church? If not, then why not?

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thanks for the thoughtful interaction. This is an extremely well thought comment comparing the similarity and difference of dispensational and Reformed Baptists theologies. I agree with so much of your assessment here. A couple of thoughts on my part (though others may view things differently). I am much more of a fan of how Reformed Baptists describe the Covenant of Grace, however, I think it is a bit faulty because the terminology/construct was originally formulated as a defense for infant baptism. So one question I have is whether it is necessary, justifiable to use CoG terminology, when over half of the Reformed world has already used it to communicate different things. Seems like we would be better served just referring to the New covenant instead of the Covenant of Grace. Also, with regard to your comments about salvation only coming through Christ--amen and amen! The point I have of the church being called "spiritual Israel" is that it seems that Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles actually make a distinction between Israel and their expectation as a nation versus the expectation of other nations. Salvation and blessings all flow through Christ, but even the most robust Reformed paedobaptist acknowledges there is a functional difference between men and women (even though both are co- and equal heirs in Christ). Same can be true of nations as well. Regarding Rom 9:6 I think Paul's main point is that just because someone is of ethnic Israel does not mean they are "true Israel" -- but the reverse doesn't seem to be said by Paul (i.e., a saved Gentile is a part of Israel). In other words, his focus is on addressing why unsaved Israelites seem to be missing out on God's promises. I addressed this verse more in my response to Jeff Durbin's video too. Really appreciate your well thought comment. Hope to interact more with you in the future as we both have time.

[@Holestic_Honesty]

Baptizing infants is like planting seeds in concrete: it contradicts the fertile soil of belief intended by scripture. Baptizing babies: washing away the meaning, not the sin. To baptize an infant is to put the cart of ritual before the horse of faith. Infant baptism: a spiritual blank check that scripture never wrote.

[@thebiblesojourner]

“A blank check scripture never wrote” - I’ll have to remember that one!

[@Holestic_Honesty]

@@thebiblesojourner I have been having long discussions on infant baptism with some friends of mine who are Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox some of these issues are different as compared to say a Presbyterian on the topic, but cross over exists over course .

[@pastorpitman]

“Law of first mention.”

[@thebiblesojourner]

Thank you!

[@TheCastleKeeper]

Kleenex, Coke, Xerox, = special use lead to general use.

[@thebiblesojourner]

Perfect! I knew there had to be something like that. Thanks so much! Great examples.

[@mikeyonce2323]

Ugh, we don't baptize dogs either (well, most churches don't). The Bible doesn't tell us to baptize dogs, neither does it forbid it.😵‍💫

[@thebiblesojourner]

That’s true-but at the same time a key part of their argument would be alleging continuity from the OT and rite of circumcision. So the dog analogy “doesn’t walk on all fours.” 🐕

[@mikeyonce2323]

@@thebiblesojourner True. But I just had to write something off the cuff 🐶as I find their argument(s) so weak, at best. Really enjoyed the program.

[@thebiblesojourner]

@@mikeyonce2323 Thanks so much, my friend. Praise God when he allows it to be helpful and enjoyable for people.

[@mikeyonce2323]

@@thebiblesojourner Listening to you and Matt Waymeyer right now concerning the binding of Satan in Rev 20. More good stuff!

[@aussierob7177]

Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit, without which no one can enter the Kingdom of God. Born with a fallen human nature, and tainted by original sin, infants also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom oh the children of God to which all people are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. Baptism has nothing to do with the Old Covenant.

[@agentclol]

Cope Anabaptist! (a joke with a tinge of truth)

[@thebiblesojourner]

😲