When Do Baptized Children Become Covenant Members? | Doug Wilson

In this episode of Ask Doug, Pastor Doug Wilson answers question about baptism and covenant membership.
Canon Wired is a ministry of Canon Press (www.canonpress.org) and Christ Church, in Moscow, Idaho.
visit www.canonwired.com for more videos or to "Ask Doug" your question.

[@21jonmark]

As someone who holds pastor Doug in high regard, and appreciates the Canon Press ministry, I can’t help but be a little shocked by the lack of scripture to back these very controversial beliefs.

[@Ryan_Zell]

Not true.

[@angieruthw]

"controversial?" According to whom? John Macarthur and JC Sprouls did an excellent debate on this issue and it was beyond respectful because this isn't controversial, as if one side is clearly heresy.. It's not "controversial" if you ACTUALLY understand that neither the baptism of believer's ONLY or the baptism of believer's PLUS covenantal children is not "direct" in scripture. EITHER way. Baptists changed everything around 1600 because infant baptism wasn't "directly" in the scripture.. but it's not NOT in the scripture and when you consider the Bible and Jewish theological basis, the Abraham convenant , the scriptures that show baptism and circumcision as synonymous covenantal promises.. if you realize that not only does the bible have instances of baptism before faith (those baptised by John the Baptist) .. that all baptisms spoken of in the new testament are of new believers repenting and then being baptized but not a single adult who had grown up in any of the churches , meaning, scriptures never once point out that they waited with church children until older. There are great theological basis and debate for BOTH sides. And as someone who was baptized as a believer's baptism, I went to a Baptist University, and has predominantly been to Baptist congregations, I have found the covenant theology very sound and fascinating with a lot of ground to back it up.

[@levibaer18]

Not controversial. I only know of one verse that confirms my belief.

[@jakeabbatacola5092]

He didn’t use Scripture?

[@bnato8209]

My allegiance is to Christ and His word. Church Confessions like the Westminster have their place, BUT they are not the Bible and Scripture in its fullness.

[@SAOProductions1955]

A pebble thrown into the debate - Just as the Scriptures state "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" and the sign of the covenant for them was circumcision - then can the same be said that "for they are not all Christians who are identified by the rite of infant baptism". So would it be correct to say that some who place their trust in having been baptized as an infant may not be able to enter God's rest in much the same way as some of those Hebrew descendants of Israel who put their in the sign of the covenant fell in the wilderness? Just a thought.....

[@mkshffr4936]

The same would apply to those putting their hope in Credo baptism. The fault in your reasoning however is that neither Credo only or Covenant Baptism puts hope in the baptism. This is no different than those in Israel who put hope in their circumcision or genetics.

[@andrewoverholser491]

MANY brothers and sisters in Christ followed this practice. I could go either way on it and yes I understand there is no explicit Scripture saying “baptize your infants.” I do not see anything wrong with it because it is not believed that baptism is the same as regeneration by the Spirit. Though I am a reformed baptist member I think that entrusting your children to God and having the sacrament of baptism applied to them is not wrong. Also, it is noteworthy Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized 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 your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

[@nonameguy4441]

He’s not talking to Christians that verse you reference in Acts. He’s talking to new converts.

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@nonameguy4441and OIKOS members

[@FBCTrona]

I have watched very similar videos, as well as read books by those who believe in uphold PO baptism, and I am overwhelmed by the lack of scripture as well as the reliance upon church, confessions and taking passages of scripture and saying something like “it could be “. You would have a very hard time, teaching baptism without using any ancient creeds or confessions and only using scripture alone

[@mikeschmoll7762]

Question relating to 1 Cor. 7.14 If the child is a Saint because of one believing parent then would it not follow logical that the unbelieving parent is also a kind of Saint because he is made holy by is believing partner? "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." 1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV

[@oracleoftroy]

"Holy" != "Saint" Holy is about being set aside with a special status. Saints are Holy in the eyes of God, but so too are their children. But the children being holy does not mean that the children are saints.

[@rbnmnt3341]

Mike schmoli, the simple answer is no. That scripture says that the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believing spouse. It says that for the sake of the children not to be unclean. It says nothing about saints. Saints is a title that all believers are given. In this case the unbelieving spouse can not be a saint. He can be sanctified only.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@oracleoftroy holy does not equal saint. Holy simply means consecrated or dedicated to God. Saint on the other hand is every believer. Not saint in the sense that roman Catholics believe.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@rbnmnt3341 Yes, that was the point of my post. Did you read it? Not equal, but clearly a relationship. However, Your OP was framed as "if the child is a saint" which is not the correct framing regarding infant baptism. The correct framing would relate to the set aside status of the children of believers and covenant members.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@oracleoftroy Corinthians has NOTHING to do with baptism period.

[@rlh125]

If you take the position that 1 Cor 7 implies a believer’s baby is a *saint*, and if you also hold that a believer can’t lose his salvation, how do you account for the fact that not every baby you baptize becomes a believer when they finally get a say in the matter? Do you differentiate between saints and believers? Perhaps you can address this question in a future video.

[@michaelmaynard2478]

This is my thought as well. It's very unclear. Are infants actually justified and saved at conception? Holy, right? Baptizing them to ratify it. I see many people baptized as infants, now adults, and doing all they can to raise hell! Are they Holy (saved) thanks to their parents faith?? Where can we go Canon Press for some answers?

[@lkae4]

Michael Maynard Hell to the no! Literally! Can't believe I'm hearing this useless garbage and false gospel from a Christian scholar.

[@TheWatkino]

My understanding is the baptism of a baby isn’t effectual until or unless they become saved later in life. I love reformed theology for the most part but this one I see zero biblical support. If not effectual at the moment then why bother in my opinion. It’s very odd

[@rlh125]

@@tjs.5044 That is not an answer to my question. I didn’t ask you what my “problem” is. If the closest you can come to answering my question is to have me study a whole theological system, you probably aren’t the person who should respond to it.

[@rlh125]

@@tjs.5044 Ah, so you don’t actually know the answer. Since you don’t have an answer, you should have just remained silent. Instead, you pretended to be someone who has the answer in the hopes of being seen as intelligent. It didn’t work. Go study your theological system until you are able to answer questions about it.

[@therealkillerb7643]

Anyone else see a discrepancy between Mr. Wilson's statements here, where he endorses Federal Vision, and the ones he made on James White's channel nine years later, where he basically denied that he had ever embraced Federal Vision? This is a legitimate question, not a "gotcha" one. I am open to explanation/correction.

[@gsp8489]

Well, here he said there was no "one" script or idea of what federal vision "is" so if a decade later the term is now associated with a specific idea, I think it's fair to say you never held to that view even though earlier you would have affirmed the term because it was used much more broadly then.

[@mkshffr4936]

An exercise for my credo only brothers (of which camp I used to be myself). Carefully read Genesis 15 and meditate on how it might relate to this issue.

[@lukeachildress]

Will do :). Could you also meditate on Hebrews 8?

[@mkshffr4936]

​@@lukeachildressYes, a good rebuttal of dispensationalism. I am not sure how it relates to the directivity of covenant. If you are using it as a proof of radical discontinuity I think it falls short in light of the overall arc of scripture. The NT seems to continue the theme of God's covenantal dealings with family units (children and spouses made holy or sanctified by virtue of family relationship for example). Throughout the NT we see allusions to dealings with families and nations just as in the old.

[@lukeachildress]

@@mkshffr4936 You are correct :)

[@LawofChristMinistries]

So you hang on the west minister but not the Bible . Bible does not teach infant baptism that’s the thing that trips me up about Presbyterians. We can’t find it bible so let’s make something up and use something that’s not Inspired like west minister , like history like man

[@oracleoftroy]

It teaches household baptism. The Bible isn't agist; the members can be young or old. Also, what is wrong with agreeing with other Christians over the centuries or having your beliefs written down? Shouldn't you condemn your own comment for the same reason you condemn the Westminster Standards? Besides, it's obvious that you haven't even read the first chapter and would rather slander and violate the 9th commandment than do what a Christian ought.

[@LawofChristMinistries]

False doctrine based on tradition not based on scripture

[@angieruthw]

Tons of scripture

[@toddmcrae3834]

Notice at the start of the video, he asks "according to federal vision". Instead of according to the bible. And the response is "this is what the westminister confession says" instead of "this is what the Bible says". If you just read the Bible by itself, you wouldn't believe in baby baptism.

[@johnschmidt1049]

Babies were circumcised in the old covenant as the sign of them being set apart from the rest of the world. The new covenant brought in the Gentiles into the covenant; it is less restrictive. Why would baptism which replaced circumcision be more restrictive? That goes against all the practices in the old covenant. Also, the WHOLE households of Lydia and the Philippian Jailer were baptized in Act 16.

[@toddmcrae3834]

@@johnschmidt1049 Its a different dispensation. Furthermore, the "household" argument has been debunked. Ultimately, scripture is our authority.

[@tjs.5044]

You an ignoramus. Try actually studying the issue instead of being an ignorant Baptist. I was a Baptist and became paedo purely convinced through Scripture. Repent of your ignorance and slander of this pastor

[@mkshffr4936]

No. Even if you consider only the bible and no other historical context covenant baptism is still a reasonable conclusion. This is especially the case if you don't impose radical discontinuity on the text. I was credo only most of my life and repeated many of the standard objections with confidence. However in time overall context convinced me that the covenant position was most likely the correct interpretation. I say most likely as I have learned to be a little circumspect about my ability to be 100% correct in all my interpretations.

[@yeoberry]

The command to baptize is to baptize "disciples" (Mt. 28:19ff). Since one cannot know if a child is a disciple or not, there is no command to baptize them. Furthermore, there is no account of baptizing children in the NT and we can infer from the Didache that they were not baptizing babies by the early second century.

[@jasonbiggs1624]

Except, in the the book of acts,at the pentecoastal event, Peter spoke to the masses and said that the promises of salvation was for the people and their children. Look closely at this: Acts 2:38-39 "38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” The "promise" is clearly about the repentance, baptism and giving of the Holy Spirit. Even if you say it only refers to the holyspirit as being recepients of it, then it makes my case all the more. Part of the recipients Peter mentions are the people and their children. And this is done shortly after Jesus commands them to make disciples by means of bastism as you listed. You ahve to read Jesus great commision in light of how the apostles implemented such vision,otherwise your left with your own mind to define the terms which can actually greatly limit what the scriptures actually condones.

[@jasonbiggs1624]

Also If we look at Paul's letters of ephesians at the end of it after he made all such declarations about the faithful and that they are chosen by God at the begining of chapter 1. His exhortations about the wives and husbands naturally follow from his theology about them, meaning that the ones whom he is exhortating are in fact the ones whom he declares to be the chosen people of God as stated in chapter one. Well among those people exhorted are children, as he writes. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”-which is the first commandment with a promise- 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a] And here he speaks directly to them to make the point all the clear. Paul does envision children as part of the community of disciples.

[@ChristianMomOnABudget]

…but children are disciples… I think all children are being discipled by their parents, unbelieving and believing alike.

[@yeoberry]

@@ChristianMomOnABudget : No, they’re not.

[@LeoRegum]

But the unbelieving spouse is also said to be ἡγίασται, so what is good for the child must be good for the spouse. This issue was never settled at Westminster.

[@jaquirox6579]

Just saw Mark Driscoll’s name in the credits for a 2011 conference. …lol

[@JR-rs5qs]

yeah, that didn't age well, did it? haha

[@jaquirox6579]

@@JR-rs5qs hahhaa it really did not! I actually recently heard about some men still listening to Driscoll, and they weren’t even aware of what happened.

[@JR-rs5qs]

@Jaqui Rox wow, they're either loving under a rock or they're 20 years behind! I do appreciate how Canon hasn't tried to wipe the record clean of their former association and promotion of Driscoll. The mistake is out there for everyone to see.

[@jaquirox6579]

@@JR-rs5qs yah I told them a bit of a summery about the Mars hill documentary thing, and encouraged them to go look it up themselves. Basically they came across Driscoll through canon because we are in Doug’s church group. But they missed the whole fiasco… and just still listen to him today!! 😂 isn’t that kind of hilarious tho? To be so blissfully unaware? Lol!! And oh yah, I do appreciate that cannon doesn’t white wash things. None of us really care about past associations, it’s really just about who they support today. :)

[@JR-rs5qs]

@@jaquirox6579 I've often wondered whether to be so 'blissfully' unaware of things would be better, but then I realize that would make me just one of the sheeple and I just can't do that. I couldn't even do it if I tried. haha

[@YTTraveler777]

He should have answered the question " I don't know. We baptize out of obedience. " We don't need to know everything Doug.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

[@Zaloomination]

I seem to remember a debate with James white and Wilson on this subject but can't find it on KZbin, am I mistaken?

[@bnrdvs]

watch?v=jlTMsNPjBLo

[@provotoprevo2609]

Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[@gsp8489]

I have heard people mention it but I also can't find it.

[@GodsTruthMinistries]

Baptism of infants is unbiblical. Believers though can be quite young. My daughter was 4 when she believed but was baptized around 12.

[@levibaer18]

Do you really think your daughter understood the tenants of Christianity at 4?

[@levibaer18]

@@isaacmaue-tg7kl The devil understands that Jesus died for our sins. I have a four year old who professes Christ, but at this point in her developing mind, she’s just repeating what she hears from her mother and I. She hasn’t parsed anything out in her mind yet to come to a decision and say, “yes I believe”.

[@roblakov]

See Matthew 28, Mark 1, Mark 16, Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 16 and many, many more...

[@churchmouse144]

Babies aren't Christian. They cannot hear the Gospel, repent, confess & be saved. In all of scripture, the outward sign comes after the inward working of God. The outward demonstration of the inward sign (wrought by the Holy Spirit) is a believer's confession of faith & then baptism. Babies cannot do this! The Great Commission is: Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them NOT go and baptize the nations, discipling them.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

Nope, circumcision was an outward sign that come before.

[@oracleoftroy]

If Babies aren't Christians, why are Baptists forcing non-Christians to go to church against their will and force them to worship a God they don't believe in? And why do they put Christain moral standards on their Children? In other words, why do they treat them as if they are a Christian?

[@churchmouse144]

Abraham received the sign of circumcision (Gen 17) AFTER he believed (Gen 15) not before. Same goes with baptism. You receive the sign of baptism after repentance and faith. This is clear in the new testament.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@churchmouse144 Yup, and he was explicitly told to apply the sign to himself (the believer), his children, and to all others in his house, including those not related by blood but who came from far off lands. Your point is actually agreed on by everyone: when you come to believe, you are to be baptized. The dispute is whether we can show that we are or are not to baptize the house of the believer as was practiced in Gen 17, reaffirmed in Acts 2, and the practice seen throughout Acts. Covenant baptism has the easier time as the Bible has a lot of statements regarding household baptism. The Baptist has to argue from silence that in every single recorded case, every single person in the house was old enough to articulate a credible confession and came to believe.

[@KyleT1990]

@@churchmouse144 we ought to treat children of Christian households as Christian’s. If they’re elect, they are elect from birth. In the same way you have no way of truly knowing a grown adult is elect even though they profess faith, you have no way of knowing a child is elect either. But we are to treat them as if they are because they are part of a believing household.

[@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104]

scripture says by grace through faith not faith and sacraments

[@valentincolasMangeon]

Yeah of course, Wilson doesn't say that either.

[@LawofChristMinistries]

Exactly

[@TdizzleM]

Petal baptism is not baptismal regeneration. The child comes into salvation once Christ regenerates them but baptism is the sign of the new covenant which does not guarantee salvation, but like circumcision is a covenental relationship promised by God to children of believers

[@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104]

@@TdizzleM in the new covenant only believers are members. the sign is not baptism but the Holy Spirit.in the OC one could investigate and see the sign (on a male). how can one see if one has been baptized? there is no explicit verse telling the believer to baptize children nor an explicit passage identifying any infants baptized. it was not common until around the mid 3rd century

[@TdizzleM]

@@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104 remember Paul in Romans, all who are in Israel are not of Israel, and that circumcision is of the heart. There were Jews outwardly but not inwardly, nevertheless those under the covenant would partake in the sacrament of circumcision and now into baptism. Children of believers inherit the promise of the covenant but must be elecg3d and regenerated to truly be a child of God. God bless you and keep you brother, pray for the church in these tumultuous times

[@BotoLishus007]

The baptist have a strong, biblical argument because they rely on the plain instruction of scripture... No theological, verbal gymnastics. Let Scripture always reform tradition not the other way.

[@oracleoftroy]

Not really. They rarely set out to prove restricting Baptism only to believers. They just repeat what everyone already agrees on and pretends that's all they need to prove. The problem is the apostles baptized households of believers, not just believers, so they have to add something to scripture to fit that to their model. The Covenant Baptist side has the better scriptural default, when the head of household believes, everyone under him joins the covenant community and thus is baptized. No need to speculate about the age or belief status of members, just do what the apostles did and baptize all that the believer has the authority to bring to church with them.

[@michaellautermilch9185]

Aren't you misreading the word "holy" just a bit in 1 Corinthians 7? Paul was arguing that the children were "holy" in order to confirm that they were "legitimate" and not born of fornication. Paul was simply saying that the otherwise improper marriage between a believer and an unbeliever should not be a cause to say that an existing marriage should be treated as less than a marriage.

[@tjs.5044]

Talk about reading things into Scripture...

[@joeywampler298]

Wow! That's some serious heresy right there. Only one verse quoted in this video, and it's misinterpreted. Admits to relying on a confession written by men and not on the scriptures alone. Wow!

[@angieruthw]

Lol. John macarthur and JC sprouls did an excellent respectful debate on this issue.. this is literally not heresy and doesn't fit that description at all

[@angieruthw]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKLEaZaBot2blc0

[@levibaer18]

I’m a reformed Baptist. One thing this is not is heresy. Stop shooting from the hip and choose your words wisely. You sound like an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist.

[@MrKC23]

1Cor 7 is a dry verse. No water there

[@mesisson]

One of the most repugnant and absurd beliefs of the reformed community - infants of believing parents are saved, and others are not. I don't really care what the Westminster "divines" came up with. I believe in the God of the Bible, and what is revealed there.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

Well, that's what the God of the Bible say "I shall be thy God and the God of thy seed"

[@Collidedatoms]

@@valentincolasMangeon I'm sorry but that's not in regards to the new covenant or even salvation.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

@@Collidedatoms Oh yeah of course, that's why the new covenant promise "I will be your God" ? And that's why God says in the end of Rev "I will be your God" ? Nothing to do with salvation and new covenant, huh ?

[@Collidedatoms]

@@valentincolasMangeon that was to Israel. It's in the context of a covenant that is based on physical descendancy; the new covenant is NOT based on physical descendancy.

[@valentincolasMangeon]

@@Collidedatoms Neither was the old (Rom 9:5-6)

[@roblakov]

Are you comparing circumcision to baptism? Do you know what baptism is? It is not in the least parallel to circumcision and was mandated for very different reasons. Show you where the Bible forbids baptizing infants? How about you show me where the Bible says that a baby can repent and believe in Christ? Only someone who doesn't understand the connection between baptism and repentance/belief would ask someone so theologically unsound.

[@rbnmnt3341]

Baptism of infants is not found anywhere in scripture. There is not one account of Jesus advocating for children to be baptized. Ever wonder why Jesus wasn't baptized as an infant? When he was baptized he did not have water sprinkled on him. Jesus was fully immersed in the river. While the bible does not prohibit infant baptism it is no a license to do so.

[@oracleoftroy]

Baptism wasn't instituted when Jesus was an infant, so that's a false equivalency; however, he did receive the covenant sign as an infant. There is no account of "immersion" as we aren't told exactly what they did when the baptizer and baptized went down to the river in detail. Obviously they need a source of water, but having a source, we aren't told exactly how it was performed. Immersion is one sense of baptism, but it more generally means washing, and is also used in contexts when sprinkling or pouring is clearly in view. We are told to baptize the households of believers. I don't think we have license to change the covenant headship displayed in the giving of the sign. Baptists ought to give a positive argument for why that is justified.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@oracleoftroy to hear Catholics tell it, infant baptism has been "like that from the beginning". That is the response from apologists when challenged about infant baptism not being biblical. According to scripture Jesus was baptized in the river by immersion. You need to read Matthew. Scripture says Jesus came up straightway from the water and the spirit of God descended upon him.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@rbnmnt3341 To help you see that you are reading mode into a neutral passage, consider Acts 8: 38f: And he commanded the chariot to stop, and *they both went down into the water,* Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when *they came up out of the water* If language like "down into the water" and "up out of the water" means immersion, then both Phillip and the eunuch were baptized by immersion. All those phrases mean is that the went to where the water was and then left that area.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@oracleoftroy nice recovery. But what about when Jesus was baptized?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@rbnmnt3341 Matt 3 uses the exact same language. "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went *up from the water,* and behold,..." All it means is that Jesus is leaving the area where the water is. They don't have plumbing or sinks or anything like that, they have to go to a water source to perform the ceremony. The water doesn't come to them on demand like we are used to today.

[@roblakov]

I just started watching some of this guy's videos and was starting to think he was okay. Until I saw this one. Baby baptism? Come on, that's one of the worst abuses and misuses of baptism on the planet. It means absolutely nothing and will give that child false assurance as they grow up. Bad theology.

[@RyanGill86]

roblakov false assurance may come from some views of infant baptism. Wilson doesn't speak for all Presbyterians. Most would say baptism does not save, so the one receiving it does not have assurance until he looks to christ to forgive his sins.

[@jgeph2.4]

How different is it from any child brought up in church thinking they are regenerate and even making a profession and getting baptized .

[@lindaw2418]

Doug’s wrong! He needs to listen to his dad.