Paedo-Baptism Answers Seeking List of Pertinent Passages

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

This may have been better in the Covenant Theology section, but I wanted to limit who could respond.

I am a confessional Baptist studying Reformed CT for the first time.

I would like a list of the most important passages to deal with when studying Reformed CT—not necessarily to do with baptism.

Anyone know of a website with such a list, or a book appendix/table of contents? Or you could provide one yourself.

Thank you very much.

 

[De Jager]

This may have been better in the Covenant Theology section, but I wanted to limit who could respond.

I am a confessional Baptist studying Reformed CT for the first time.

I would like a list of the most important passages to deal with when studying Reformed CT—not necessarily to do with baptism.

Anyone know of a website with such a list, or a book appendix/table of contents? Or you could provide one yourself.

Thank you very much.

Any passage which will help you understand that there is a unity to the people of God throughout the Bible will be of help to you - i.e. one people of God from Genesis to Revelation.

Here are a couple of my favourites:

1. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13

Here, Paul explicitly links the church in Corinth to the nation of Israel of old, warning them that "our fathers" passed through the sea, were baptized, etc. but many fell away. We learn from "our fathers" a union between the church of the NT to Israel of old. We also see that all were baptized, but that some fell away. Paul uses this as a warning to the church in Corinth, warning them against falling away. This goes against the way of thinking of some baptists, i.e. that the new covenant people are a spiritual people only. Well, the reality is that the administration of the new covenant deals with a visible people, among whom are those who are truly converted and those who are not, and that's why you have warnings about apostasy. There has always been, from the beginning until now, a visible church and an invisible church, and the administration of the covenant has always been to a visible people.

2. Romans 11:11-36

A main take away here is that the church is represented by one olive tree, a single tree in which gentiles are grafted into a pre-existing tree. They are not a new pet project of God. They are grafted into Israel itself. The geopolitical nation of Israel is no longer identified as the church, but that does not mean that a new tree is planted. Rather, the unbelieving branches are cut off, and others are grafted in. One tree.

3. Romans 4:11-12

Circumcision is not an ethnic badge. Ultimately, it is a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith...we are speaking of that imputed righteousness based on the work of Christ, which is a promise of the covenant of grace.

4. Exodus 12:43-49

Circumcision was not just for Jews. It was for any person, even a foreigner who believed in the LORD. Circumcision was the right of passage into the visible church of the day. If for example an Edomite believed in the LORD, he would be circumcised with all his males, and would then be a part of the visible church. He would have just as much a right to eat of the passover as a native Hebrew, even though his descendants never actually took part of the "passover" event. This is because the passover ultimately points to the work of Christ on the cross.

There are so many others and I don't have time to get into everything, but here are a few favourites.

 

[Polanus1561]

Jer 31.31-34

 

[JTB.SDG]

On the nature of the Abrahamic covenant: Genesis 17:7-8: Ask: Was this covenant ethnic/racial/temporal or spiritual/eternal? What is God promising?

On the meaning of the land in the Abrahamic covenant: Psalm 37:29 (most of this Psalm really); Hebrews 11:9-16; Romans 4:13 on its true boundaries

On faith and the covenant sign: Romans 4:9-12 together with what Abraham is commanded to do with his infant sons in Genesis 17

On children of believers being part of the covenant: Deut.30:6 and Is.59:21: What is God promising in the NEW covt (and the continuity with Gen.17)?

On the Mosaic Covenant being part of the Covenant of Grace: Hebrews 4:2,6

On the distinction of the visible/invisible church: Matthew 13:47-50; John 15:2

Great question. This may be a start, hope it helps!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's important to latch on to covenant-concepts as they originate from the beginning, being articulated in the first book of Holy Scripture, Genesis. There is a crucial covenant-making ceremony in Gen.15, which should not be detached from God's first special interactions with Abraham going back to Gen.12, or the seal he puts on his covenant in Gen.17 through the sign of the covenant (circumcision); or even further to his affirmation of the promise of the covenant in the aftermath of the binding of Isaac, Gen.21, including assurance that the covenant will continue intergenerationally.

The covenant with Abraham isn't the first appearance either of the word for covenant in Genesis, or of the elements comprising covenant arrangements. We should avoid the word-concept fallacy, that alleges such-and-such is not to be recognized unless a particular term is used to describe the phenomenon. For this reason, looking back into the very beginning in Eden, we re-read God's interaction with Adam with the covenant concepts we read explicitly later on; and we recognize the stipulations of covenant formulae are plainly there in the garden. Israel, upon receiving Genesis from Moses' hand, and with their own experience at Sinai immediate in their minds, would doubtless hear the first man's experience through their own covenant experience filter.

This combination of hearing/reading and experience reinforces repeatedly the act of engagement with "my" text. Solidarity with the original parties, with the fathers of them inheriting the text containing the covenant, who understand the covenant is not just with them of the past (Dt.5:3) but with a new generation--these factors bring a present day reader into an understanding that God's covenant is in the word, and is the word. In fact, the very language we commonly use to refer to the Bible's main divisions demonstrates this: "Testament." This word is translated from the Gk "diatheke," which is rendered in the NT as either covenant or testament, and perhaps (some argue) should always be rendered covenant. When we consider that the Word was made flesh in Christ, we further connect our covenant identity to both the record of covenanting, to the record as covenant itself, and to the embodiment of covenant fulfillment and refreshment in the ideal covenant Man, the Lord Jesus.

Apostle Paul and other NT writers answer for us the important question of how Abraham's covenant (Gen.15) relates to the covenant at Sinai (Ex.24). They are related, but they are not the same. There are aspects of Israel's constitutional national covenant that have a strong "works" flavor (even if we guard against interpreting Sinai as if it was meritorious in essence). St. Paul writes that the later covenant, with its works content, could never supersede the earlier covenant (with Abraham) that was strictly promissory, Gal.3:17. St. Paul regards the NT believer, regardless of his genetic ancestry, as the heir of Abraham's covenant, Gal.3:29, Rom.4:11-12, downplaying the privilege of mere birth-connection, Rom.2:28-29. St. Paul is so bold as to register those who prefer Sinai to Jerusalem/Moriah as actually identifying with Ishmael over Isaac, Gal.4:21ff.

Apostle Peter invokes the Abrahamic covenant in Act.2:36-39, to reassure and to reinstate those cut-off from the covenant through murder of the Heir (cf. Mt.21:38-41), by faith in him who God raised from the dead. The "promise" (v39) is the foundational covenant made with Abraham, now realized in Christ, the true Heir of all his father's possession, Mt.28:18; cf. Gen.24:26. St. Peter uses the same terminology as God did of old, in order to awaken hope that salvation was not beyond them, and that in spite of everything they had done they might still be called "friends of God," Is.41:8; 2Chr.20:7; Jas.2:23.

The book of Hebrews has been called "the epistle of the covenant [diatheke]," because of how it fleshes out the Christological fulfillment of the faith of Abraham and of Israel. Christ is portrayed as the fulfillment of the covenant ideal, as the perfect Mediator, better than David, better than Aaron, better than Moses; the true King, Priest, and Prophet for the people. Abraham acted in mediatorial fashion back in Genesis. Moses was the mediator of the Sinai covenant, in which capacity he functioned in a way no successor would or could (filling all three covenant offices) until a Mediator of the New Covenant should arrive. Moses warned the people not to despise him when he arrived, Dt.18:15. Moses works for Jesus, and not the other way, Heb.3:3, 5-6.

Heb.9:18 states: covenant (making) and blood go together, see also Lk.22:20 and Heb.12:24. The New Covenant sees all that went before fullfilled. The Old Covenant that passes away is specifically Moses' covenant ("not like the covenant I made... bringing them out of Egypt," Jer.31:32) . It too is fulfilled along with everything in the Old Testament (which contains more than the Old Covenant). Christ is a better fulfillment to Abraham than even Isaac, who does take over his father's mediatorial roles (see Gen.26), and carries on the covenant life, to be passed on eventually to Jacob, etc. Christ is a better fulfillment to David and the special covenant promises made to him (Ps.89:28) than even Solomon, Mt.12:42. As a sign of New Covenant reality, Christ pours out the Spirit, Act.2, that was expected by the prophets (e.g. Jol.2:28) and which Moses could not do but longed to see, Num.11:29. The wonderful sign of Spirit-endowment was only tasted by a relative few in the pre-New Covenant era, by those prophets, priests, and kings who typified the One who was to come.

The passages you have been encouraged to read by me and the others responding in this thread are not the scripture PROOFS of covenant theology, that are bound convince the open-minded reader of how accurate CT must be. They are simply key texts that highlight how we think the Bible is meant to be read, cover to cover. Personally, I think once it is seen, it cannot be unseen. When/if that happens, these (and other) passages will appear as most abundant proofs of your conviction.

 

[Romans678]

This podcast series has been helpful on this subject. God bless!

Heidelcast Series: I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children - The Heidelblog

The question of baptism, who should be baptized and why, is not just a question about the sacraments. It is a question that is integrally connected to the way we read the Scriptures (hermeneutics), the way we understand redemptive history, the way we understand the biblical covenants, the...

heidelblog.net

 

[De Jager]

There's also a series of lectures on Covenant Theology on sermonaudio.com by C. Matthew McMahon who posts (founded?) on this board which are very helpful.

 

[aaronsk]

There's also a series of lectures on Covenant Theology on sermonaudio.com by C. Matthew McMahon who posts (founded?) on this board which are very helpful.

He has several very good books on the subject as well.

This is the easiest to start with.

A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology – by C. Matthew McMahon – Puritan Publications

www.puritanpublications.com

 

[ReformedChristian]

Acts 2:38-39
Psalm 22:9-10
Genesis 17
Matthew 19:14

 

[Sovereign Grace]

@De Jager

THANK YOU!!!!!

When you posted this it was a few minutes later something clicked and I literally snapped my fingers and said, "That's it!!"

2. Romans 11:11-36

A main take away here is that the church is represented by one olive tree, a single tree in which gentiles are grafted into a pre-existing tree. They are not a new pet project of God. They are grafted into Israel itself. The geopolitical nation of Israel is no longer identified as the church, but that does not mean that a new tree is planted. Rather, the unbelieving branches are cut off, and others are grafted in. One tree.


Gentiles are grafted into Israel, not the nation of ethnic Jews, but the true Israel, as we see who Paul tells us makes up his nation in Romans 2:28-29. The OT sign was circumcision and without it, no one was allowed entrance into the covenant community. In the NT, the sign is baptism and without it (I know of no church who allows ppl to become members without baptism, whether it is sprinkling, pouring, immersion) no one is allowed entrance into the visible church, the covenant community. This was a family covenant in the OT, so for continuity to take place, it can no longer be an individualistic covenant but family.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

@De Jager

THANK YOU!!!!!

When you posted this it was a few minutes later something clicked and I literally snapped my fingers and said, "That's it!!"

2. Romans 11:11-36

A main take away here is that the church is represented by one olive tree, a single tree in which gentiles are grafted into a pre-existing tree. They are not a new pet project of God. They are grafted into Israel itself. The geopolitical nation of Israel is no longer identified as the church, but that does not mean that a new tree is planted. Rather, the unbelieving branches are cut off, and others are grafted in. One tree.


Gentiles are grafted into Israel, not the nation of ethnic Jews, but the true Israel, as we see who Paul tells us makes up his nation in Romans 2:28-29. The OT sign was circumcision and without it, no one was allowed entrance into the covenant community. In the NT, the sign is baptism and without it (I know of no church who allows ppl to become members without baptism, whether it is sprinkling, pouring, immersion) no one is allowed entrance into the visible church, the covenant community. This was a family covenant in the OT, so for continuity to take place, it can no longer be an individualistic covenant but family.

I hope I didn't mess this up as I am still trying to learn Presbyterian Covenant Theology. So if I said something that was not exactly correct, correction from you and others is most welcomed and appreciated.

 

[Romans678]

I hope I didn't mess this up as I am still trying to learn Presbyterian Covenant Theology. So if I said something that was not exactly correct, correction from you and others is most welcomed and appreciated.

Continuity is key.

I'm like you brother. I've been going to a faithful confessional Baptist fellowship for quite some time now and I love them dearly. I've heard it a thousand times over that Reformed Presbyterians are more concerned with keeping with Rome to do away with their view of baptism. That is simply not the case. The Reformed view of baptism is in an entirely different galaxy compared to them!

The Reformed are more concerned with believing God's everlasting promises more than anything! When God says a promise is everlasting, then that promise is everlasting and we can rest in that. That's what pushed me over to the other side and ultimately helped me trust God even more.

I am a Freshman so bear with me. There is a lot more to Covenant Theology than I've touched on. These gentlemen in this thread have done a wonderful job explaining the basics. May the Lord bless you in your studies!

 

[De Jager]

The view that the Reformed are still hanging onto the Catholic Church because they love Paedobaptism is a bit of a joke, to be honest.

1. Just because a practice is the same between two groups does not mean both groups mean the same thing. Both we and Catholics pray. Does that mean we are hanging onto the RCC by praying? It's a bad argument. We both baptize infants but for different reasons.

2. Our view of baptism is different. They view it as an infusion of regenerating grace. No presbyterian/reformed believes that.

3. Read the writings of the reformers like Calvin or Guido de Bres, and then tell me with a straight face that these guys just couldn't shake off the RCC when it comes to Paedobaptism. They literally condemn the RCC in some of the strongest possible terms. In the Heidelberg Catechism the mass is called an "accursed idolatry".

 

[Romans678]

The view that the Reformed are still hanging onto the Catholic Church because they love Paedobaptism is a bit of a joke, to be honest.

1. Just because a practice is the same between two groups does not mean both groups mean the same thing. Both we and Catholics pray. Does that mean we are hanging onto the RCC by praying? It's a bad argument. We both baptize infants but for different reasons.

2. Our view of baptism is different. They view it as an infusion of regenerating grace. No presbyterian/reformed believes that.

3. Read the writings of the reformers like Calvin or Guido de Bres, and then tell me with a straight face that these guys just couldn't shake off the RCC when it comes to Paedobaptism. They literally condemn the RCC in some of the strongest possible terms. In the Heidelberg Catechism the mass is called an "accursed idolatry".

I'm with you brother. Amen.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I’m hoping to work through this thread soon and give some feedback. Thanks brothers.