CONTENT SAMPLER UNEDITED MANUSCRIPT NOT FINAL INTERIOR DESIGN

Transcription

1 CONTENT SAMPLER UNEDITED MANUSCRIPT NOT FINAL INTERIOR DESIGN Church Government for an AntiInstitutional Age EDITED BY MARK DEVER AND JONATHAN LEEMAN

2 Copyright 2015 by Mark Dever and 9 Marks All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Published by B&H Publishing Group Nashville, Tennessee SAMPLER NOT FOR RESALE

3 Contents Foreword James Leo Garrett Jr. Editors and Contributors Preface Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman Abbreviations Introduction Jonathan Leeman Part 1: Congregationalism 1. Some Historical Roots of Congregationalism Michael A. G. Haykin 2. The Biblical and Theological Case for Congregationalism Stephen J. Wellum and Kirk Wellum Part 2: The Ordinances 3. Five Preliminary Issues for Understanding the Ordinances Shawn D. Wright 4. Baptism in the Bible Thomas R. Schreiner 5. Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church Shawn D. Wright 6. The Lord s Supper in the Bible Thomas R. Schreiner 7. The Lord s Supper in History, Theology, and the Church Shawn D. Wright Part 3: Church Membership and Discipline 8. The Why and Who of Church Membership John Hammett iii

4 9. The What and How of Church Membership John Hammett 10. The Why, How, and When of Church Discipline Thomas White Part 4: Elders and Deacons 11. Elders and Deacons in History Mark Dever 12. The Scriptural Basis for Elders Benjamin L. Merkle 13. The Biblical Qualifications for Elders Benjamin L. Merkle 14. The Biblical Role of Elders Benjamin L. Merkle 15. Practical Issues in Elder Ministry Andrew Davis 16. The Office of Deacon Benjamin L. Merkle 17. Practical Issues in Deacon Ministry Andrew Davis Part 5: The Church and Churches 18. A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity Jonathan Leeman 19. Independence and Interdependence Jonathan Leeman Name Index Subject Index Scripture Index iv

5 CHAPTER 5 Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church Shawn D. Wright The last chapter examined the New Testament s teaching on baptism, which prepared the way for this chapter. Here I will begin by noting two issues of a historical nature that inform our theological formulation, which in turn will help us define baptism theologically and make ecclesiological applications. The Development of Infant Baptism To begin it is worth looking at the rise of infant baptism and the baptismal theologies of Lutheranism and Reformed covenantal theology. The Early Church It is fair to say that, at best, great fluidity was in the church s baptismal theology from about AD 100 to 500. Various church leaders propounded different views, often leading to sharp geographical differences of opinion. 1 Rather than trace the flow of thought across the 1. This is the opinion of two paedobaptist historians who conclude that infant baptism was not the practice of the early church. See H. F. Stander and J. P. Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, rev. ed. (1994; rpt., Leeds, England: Reformation Today, 2004). The most comprehensive study of this subject, also concluding that paedobaptism was a later development, is Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Some paedobaptists believe that the historical evidence suggests an earlier date 1

6 Patristic era, we shall merely note several instances that demonstrate the practice of the early church was to baptize converts to the faith. Along the way, reasons for the growth of the novel practice of infant baptism will be suggested. A document from the second century known as the Didache detailed the church s baptismal practice. It describes immersion as the preferred method of baptism and says the one being baptized should prepare himself before receiving baptism: Before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. 2 This would not, of course, apply to infants who would not be able to fast. 3 In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr echoed the idea that baptism was reserved for those who had made a commitment to follow Christ: As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we are praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated [i.e., baptized]. 4 Clearly, again, baptism was for those who had consciously committed themselves to follow Christ. The third-century treatise by Tertullian, On Baptism, is the oldest extant work devoted to the ordinance of baptism. Tertullian wrote this treatise in opposition to a new practice showing up in some segments of the church: infant baptism. This new practice was fraught with difficulties: infants had no sin that needed to be cleansed; infants were unable to commit themselves to live a Christian life, which baptism called for the genesis of infant baptism. See, e.g., Sinclair B. Ferguson, Infant Baptism View, in Baptism: Three Views, ed. David F. Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), Didache 7.4 in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed., ed. and trans. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), Steven A. McKinion, Baptism in the Patristic Writings, in Believer s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. T. R. Schreiner and S. D. Wright (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), Justin Martyr, First Apology 61 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). 2

7 them to do; and their sponsors could not be held liable for the infants potential future lack of pursuit of Christ. 5 Later in the same century, Cyprian of Carthage penned his Epistle 58 to announce the decision of an African synod in AD 253 to require the baptism of infants. 6 Moving in a decidedly sacramental direction, Cyprian averred that no one should be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, suggesting that grace was given to infants at their baptisms. 7 Still, the fact that a regional synod was called to discuss infant baptism suggests that the practice was not universal, even in the mid-third century. 8 Two later Christians works will end our discussion of the patristic era. Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389/390), one of the three Cappadocian Fathers and a central theologian in the East, is pertinent because of his Oration 40, which addressed baptism. In essence, Gregory taught that the church should delay baptism until somewhere around the child s third year, so that the child could understand something of what was happening to him and of the commitment he was making. Infant baptism should only be performed if there was a high likelihood that the infant would die. As Steven McKinion notes, it is likely that Gregory was allowing for infant baptism as a pastoral compromise to aid families grieving the loss of a child. 9 This seems likely, especially given the fact 5. McKinion, Baptism in the Patristic Writings, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, 174. Tertullian s primary concern was that infant baptism negated the church s practice, already seen clearly in the documents from the second century, of a time of preparation for baptism which included repentance from sin, fasting, and prayer. None of these necessary precursors to baptism was possible for infants. Each was possible, however, for young children and those who were older (ibid., ). Tertullian responded to one of the texts paedobaptists continue to use as support for their position: The Lord does indeed say, Do not forbid them to come to me. Let them come while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning where they are coming. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ (On Baptism, 18). 6. McKinion, Baptism in the Patristic Writings, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, Ibid., Ibid. 9. Ibid., 183. Due to the dual pressures of infant mortality and evolving views of the sinfulness of even newborn infants, the novel practice of baptizing infants became widespread by the third century. This practice was not accepted as universal even by the fourth century, as infants need for forgiveness continued to be questioned (ibid., 188). Stander and Louw conclude their study in this way: In the first four centuries of Christianity, the literature 3

8 that Gregory himself was not baptized until he was thirty, even though his father was a bishop of the church. 10 In the West, Augustine (d. 430) takes pride of place as the most important thinker from the early church. Although he had not been baptized as an infant, Augustine argued for paedobaptism. Against the Donatists, he urged the parallel of infant baptism with circumcision. Against the Pelagians, he averred that only infant baptism could cleanse the child of original sin and implant the life of Christ in him. 11 Even though Augustine argued forcefully for the historicity of paedobaptism, and even though his doctrinal exposition helped support the practice throughout the medieval period, 12 infant baptism was not the universal practice of the church during Augustine s life. However, the North African bishop s authority and ability to sway his readers seems to have helped move the broader church toward adopting paedobaptism in the years that followed. 13 In the Western church out of which Protestantism on baptism clearly shows how, in the majority of instances, it was persons of responsible age (generally adults and grown children) who were recipients of baptism. Emergency baptism and the eventual linking of baptism to circumcision, as well as the fact that baptism was believed to remove sin, occasioned the extension of baptism to small children and finally to infants. Though some authors (Tertullian and Gregory of Nazianzus) opposed this development, others (Cyprian) strongly advocated this trend, contending that no one is to be deprived of salvation and all the gifts of God s grace. Within this theological framework, baptism became... the most exclusive donator of Christian blessings. The symbol became the actual means. The rite of baptism itself, rather than Christ, became the guarantee of eternal salvation.... While the third century voiced objections against what appears to have been a growth in the number of infants being baptized, the fourth century seems to have accepted these baptisms along with adult baptism which was still performed on a regular scale. It may, however, be said that since the fourth century infant baptism began to develop into a generally accepted custom (Stander and Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, ). 10. McKinion, Baptism in the Patristic Writings, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, Ibid., The church was rescued from Baptist theology and practice by Augustine of Hippo (Peter J. Leithart, Infant Baptism in History: An Unfinished Tragicomedy, in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003], 258). 12. See Jonathan H. Rainbow, Confessor Baptism : The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early Anabaptists, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, Before Augustine of Hippo, baptismal practice and theology assumed the active participation of converts; baptism of infants and children took place, but far from routinely and perhaps primarily in cases of illness. Augustine s early writings show that he, like other 4

9 sprang, Augustine s teaching that original sin made infants liable to future punishment and concern about high infant mortality rates appear to have been the theological and pastoral impetuses, respectively, behind the universal adoption of infant baptism. Martin Luther Martin Luther (d. 1546) moved the church in new directions regarding the nature of authority (Scripture) and the means of salvation (faith, not works). Luther believed that faith and the power of the Word of God were both essential in baptism. 14 Faith was central to Luther, not an alien faith like the Catholics had taught but real, genuine faith: Unless faith is present, or comes to life in baptism, the ceremony is of no avail.... Who should receive baptism? The one who believes is the person to whom the blessed, divine water is to be imparted. Rather than moving away from paedobaptism though, Luther taught that infants should be baptized because they really do believe: In baptism the infants themselves believe and have their own faith. Apparently not seeing the illogic of his reason, he asserted, When the baptizer asks whether the infant believes, and it is answered Yes for him, and whether he wants to be baptized, and it is answered Yes for him... therefore it must also be he Christians of his time, had done little theological thinking about infant baptism. On baptism they are neither passionate nor profound. A new clarity came to his treatment of baptism after c.410 in his anti-pelagian writings. Theologically he came to believe that infant baptism was the sole cure for the guilt of original sin; practically he came to advocate the universal baptism of infants soon after their birth. The result was a devaluation of baptism in the West which did much to determine the contours of Christendom. (David F. Wright, Augustine and Transformation of Baptism, in The Origins of Christendom in the West, ed. Alan Kreider [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001, 287]). 14. In the discussion of Luther and Zwingli s interaction with the Anabaptists, I am following the contours of Rainbow, Confessor Baptism in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, For a contemporary defense of Lutheran baptism, see Robert Kolb, Lutheran View: God s Baptismal Act as Regenerative, in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, ed. John H. Armstrong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007),

10 himself who believes, or else those who answer must be lying when they say I believe for him. 15 Infants can only exercise faith because the word has created it within them. For Luther, faith and the Word of God always work in tandem. As the word of the gospel was spoken in the baptismal ceremony, it penetrated the infant s heart and created faith. Infants are baptized because they really believe. At least one early group of Protestants began to question Luther s baptismal practice. The Anabaptists believed that the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone should result in the practice of baptizing only those who had exercised faith. They believed the New Testament everywhere supported their confessor baptism view. It was in opposition to these Anabaptists that a new paedobaptist argument was offered by Ulrich Zwingli, pastor of the Reformed church in Zurich. 16 Zwingli s thought was later developed and elaborated by John Calvin. This Calvinistic argument is the most common evangelical defense of paedobaptism in our day. Covenantal Paedobaptism The Calvinistic paedobaptist doctrine is too vast to engage comprehensively here. 17 We will, rather, look at several key features that unite 15. K. Brinkel, Die Lehre Luthers von der fides infantium bei der Kindertaufe (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstatt, 1958), 44; quoted in Rainbow, Confessor Baptism, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, Zwingli was the first person in the history of the church to sever faith from baptism. Prior to his teaching, people were baptized either because they exercised faith or because it was thought that faith was granted them at baptism. Zwingli, though, said faith was irrelevant in baptism. He was aware of the novelty of his position, as he pointed out in his 1525 treatise, On Baptism: In this matter of baptism if I may be pardoned for saying it I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a serious and weighty assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that had I not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits, I would have preferred to keep silence.... At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries. Baptists would do well to remind our paedobaptist friends that we are not the ones who ve created a new theology of baptism. We re doing what Christians have done for centuries: baptizing because we think faith is present. It is they who have created a new doctrine of baptism. 17. Contemporary defenses of this position include Gregg Strawbridge, ed., The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003); Richard L. Pratt Jr., Reformed 6

11 adherents of this perspective, offering correctives to the salient points of the position. Four of their major arguments will require our attention. 1. Denying Their Own Definition of Baptism In the first place, covenantal paedobaptists must deny their own definitions of what baptism is. Calvin provided an illuminating example, beginning with a succinct definition: baptism is the sign of initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God s children. 18 Baptism marks one as being united with Christ. It does so because baptism both demonstrates faith and confirms that one has exercised faith: baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God s people; by which we testify that we agree in worshiping the same God, in one religion with all Christians; by which finally we openly affirm our faith. 19 Faith is central: from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain only as much as we receive in faith. If we lack faith, this will be evidence of our ungratefulness, which renders us chargeable before God, because we have not believed the promise given there. 20 Although faith can be a subjective act, three objective components to baptism are: baptism symbolizes and proves that a Christian has been cleansed of his sin; 21 it symbolizes that a believer has died to sin and been renewed in Christ; 22 and it demonstrates a disciple s union with Christ. Stressing the manner in which baptism symbolizes a Christian s union with Christ, Calvin avered that View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant, in Armstrong, Understanding Four Views of Baptism, 59 72; Ferguson, Infant Baptism View, in Wright, Baptism: Three Views, Reformed covenantalists are not monolithic. Meredith Kline s biblical-theological oath sign view is treated in Duane A. Garrett, Meredith Kline on Suzerainty, Circumcision, and Baptism, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Calvin, Institutes Later Calvin notes that baptism is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith (Institutes ). 20. Calvin, Institutes Calvin, Institutes Calvin, Institutes

12 our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings. For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us. 23 We think that Calvin was correct in his exposition of the meaning of baptism. He reflected the New Testament s teaching well. How he could go on in the next chapter of The Institutes to advocate infant baptism is a mystery that baffles us and has stymied others too. 24 Calvin overturned his definition of baptism by advocating infant baptism Reading Children into the Text The second foundation of covenantal paedobaptists is not difficult to understand. They display a consistent penchant for reading children into baptismal passages and for reading baptism into passages that have nothing to do with this rite. Whether it is Jesus welcoming of the little children, the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:39), the household baptisms in Acts, or Paul s words in 1 Corinthians 7:14, our paedobaptist friends seem to assume that wherever a child is mentioned baptism must be in view. 23. Calvin, Institutes For a critique of Calvin s inconsistencies on the doctrine of baptism, see Shawn D. Wright, Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, Karl Barth noted, According to Calvin s own and in itself excellent baptismal teaching, baptism consists not only in our receiving the symbol of grace, but it is at the same time, in our consentire cum omnibus christianis, in our public affirmare of our faith, in our iurare in God s name, also the expression of a human velle. This without doubt it must be, in virtue of the cognitive character of the sacramental power. But then, in that case, baptism can be no kind of infant-baptism. How strange that Calvin seems to have forgotten this in his next chapter where he sets out his defense of infant-baptism, there commending a baptism which is without decision and confession (The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, trans. Ernest A. Payne [London: SCM Press, 1948], 48). 25. See Wright, Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism, , for similar critiques of other paedobaptist thinkers. 8

13 But of course that cannot be the case. Jesus compared the faith he desired to the faith of children, but he did not say anything about baptism. 26 The Spirit was dispersed on all sorts of people in Acts 2 in fulfillment of the new covenant promises of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Joel. A consistent paedobaptist analysis of Acts 2:39, as well as of 1 Corinthians 7:14, would lead to baptizing unbelieving spouses and all who are far off. Lastly, the households in Acts need not have contained infants, and indeed the members of the households believed before they were baptized. We are left agreeing with Baptist theologian Roger Nicole s quip: There are three types of passages in the NT: those which speak of infants, those which speak of baptism, and those which speak of neither The Church s Mixed Character In the third place, Reformed paedobaptists assume that the church is of a mixed character that it is composed both of believers and unbelievers. The argument here depends on a great measure of covenantal continuity across the canon: just as the people of God in ancient Israel were composed of both believers and unbelievers, so the people of God in the New Testament church are likewise made up of both wheat and tares. Membership in the covenant community, then, does not mean a person is saved. It means access to certain privileges, such as hearing the Word of the Lord, being around those who will pray for you, having good role models, and so forth. Membership is not an indication of whether or not one is bound for heaven. This is a foundational argument for paedobaptists because abundant proof is in the Old Testament that this was indeed the situation for Israelites. Circumcision was a physical marker bringing one into a national community. It did not indicate that someone was saved. God separately called the people to salvation by commanding them to 26. Timothy George rightly notes, Jesus took a special interest in children, received them into his arms, and blessed them. He did not baptize them ( The Reformed Doctrine of Believers Baptism, Interpretation 47 [1993]: 252). 27. Nicole said this in lectures and conversations at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, but I have not seen it in print. 9

14 circumcise their hearts. Time and again, we read in the Old Testament about members of the covenant community (priests, kings, etc.) who were definitely not spiritually renewed. The mixed character of national Israel (with its entrance marker of circumcision), so the argument goes, is the paradigm for the church (with its entrance marker of infant baptism). This character of the church is essential to the paedobaptist argument. B. B. Warfield, for example, announced, According as is our doctrine of the Church, so will be our doctrine of the Subjects of Baptism. 28 Pierre Marcel makes this point explicitly: Since the covenant is the same in both Old and New Testaments, and the sacraments have the same fundamental significance, another conclusion urges itself upon us where the objective elements of the covenant are concerned, namely, that through the course of history the Church has been and remains one: the nation of Israel was the Church; the Christian Church, since it also comes under the covenant of grace, is the same Church. 29 The people of God, as well as the significance of the entrance marker into this covenant community, are one across redemptive history. Because of the reality of covenantal continuity, there is one people of God. This becomes a foundational argument for paedobaptism. 30 We agree with Warfield that one s definition of the church will, in essence, determine one s doctrine of baptism. However, we also think that our paedobaptist brethren are reading too much Old Testament background into the pages of the New Testament, especially the Epistles. The New Testament Epistles everywhere assume that those who are in the church are true believers. The Epistles address church 28. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism, in Studies in Theology (1932; rpt, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 389. Another paedobaptist theologian similarly notes that The ongoing debate [between paedo- and credobaptists] is not about nurture but about God s way of defining the church (J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs [Wheaton: Tyndale, 1993], 216). 29. Pierre Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism: Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, trans. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1953), 95 (emphasis his). 30. See Wright, Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists, in Schreiner and Wright, Believer s Baptism,

15 members as saints or holy ones, and they point to clear objective realities that God has accomplished among them. In Ephesians, for example, they have been elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sealed by the Spirit (Eph 1:3 14). Even in 1 Corinthians, surely written to one of the most dysfunctional churches of the apostolic era, Paul speaks of the church in objective categories that can only be applied to true believers. Nothing is hypothetical or potential in Paul s thinking. He addressed the letter to saints who are called by God and sanctified by Christ (1 Cor 1:2). He thanked God for the work he has already done in the people s lives (1:4). He implored them to live set-apart, holy lives because of the work God has done for them in Christ (1:10). And he directed them to excommunicate from the church a person who refuses to repent of known, flagrant sin (5:5). The New Testament speaks of the church as a redeemed community, set apart by God s sovereign will, to be his own peculiar people. They are not a mixed community. 4. The Covenant of Grace The covenant argument serves as the primary foundation and warrant for infant baptism, specifically the argument that the covenant of grace ties all of Scripture together and thus justifies paedobaptism in the church. 31 This is the fourth and the major tenet of covenantal 31. See Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), Covenantal paedobaptist Randy Booth summarizes the covenantal argument for infant baptism in the following five steps: 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 the 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. (R. R. Booth, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1995], 8, cited by Wellum, Baptism and the Relationship Between the 11

16 infant baptism. Stephen Wellum summarizes the covenant of grace well. It is, first of all, to be seen in contrast to the covenant of works made with Adam. As representative of the entire race, Adam sinned, plunging all his posterity into sin, death, and condemnation. Yet God is gracious, and he made a second covenant with the elect, the covenant of grace wherein God of grace freely offered to sinners life and salvation through the last Adam, the covenantal head of his people, the Lord Jesus Christ. 32 This covenant of grace, which began immediately after the fall into sin, is the central covenant of God in Scripture. The nature of God s promise in the covenant of grace was revealed progressively in the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David, and it was brought to fulfillment in the new covenant. Wellum summarizes covenantal thought this way: It is important to stress that even though there are different covenants described in Scripture, there is, in reality, only one overarching covenant of grace. That is why one must view the relationships between the covenants in terms of an overall continuity. Booth underscores this point in his comments on the newness of the covenant inaugurated by our Lord. He states, the new covenant is but a new though more glorious administration of the same covenant of grace. Thus, under the old covenant administration of the covenant of grace, it was administered through various promises, prophecies, sacrifices, rites and ordinances (e.g., circumcision) that ultimately typified and foreshadowed the coming of Christ. Now in light of his coming, the covenant of grace is administered through the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. But in God s plan there are not two covenants of grace, one in the Old Testament and the other in the NT, but one covenant differing in substance but essentially the same across the ages. 33 Covenants, Believer s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. T. R. Schreiner and S. D. Wright [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006], 99). 32. Wellum, Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants, Ibid., 103, citing Booth, Children of Promise, 9. 12

17 The doctrine of the covenant of grace has several deficiencies that we will note briefly, ending with the most serious critique, which undercuts the doctrine of Reformed paedobaptists. 34 In the first place, the phrase covenant of grace is never used in the Bible, although the Scripture speaks much of covenants and of grace. To use this rubric as the final proof for infant baptism without seeking to prove its existence from the pages of the Bible is to force a theological category on the redemptivehistorical flow of Scripture that does not allow the Bible to speak on its own terms. Wellum comments, When it comes to thinking of the covenant, let us speak in the plural and then unpack the relationships between the biblical covenants vis-à-vis the overall eternal plan of God centered in Jesus Christ. We may then think through more accurately how the one plan of God, tied to the promises of God first given in Gen 3:15, is progressively revealed in history through the biblical covenants. For, in the end, to continue to speak of the covenant of grace too often only leads to a flattening of Scripture; indeed it results in a reductionism which has the tendency of fitting Scripture into our theological system rather than the other way around. 35 We must read the Bible on its own terms. In addition, the doctrine of the covenant of grace fails to see the importance of the Abrahamic covenant in the development of biblical revelation, specifically the manner in which it points forward to the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus. Both the Mosaic and the Davidic covenants are built on the backbone of the Abrahamic covenant, showing that the Abrahamic covenant was paradigmatic and the latter two focused the promises of the former one, first in the people of Israel and then in her king. 36 There 34. In addition to Wellum s cogent critiques, see Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), Wellum, Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants, Ibid.,

18 is movement from promise to fulfillment seen in the various covenant administrations; covenant theology fails to see this. 37 Most significantly, the doctrine of the covenant of grace fails to take account of the newness of the new covenant. Those who hold to the covenant of grace, according to Wellum, believe the new covenant is new because it expands the previous era, broadens its extent, yields greater blessings, but the basic continuity is still in place, particularly in regard to the nature of the covenant community. Additionally, this is why paedobaptists argue that the new covenant, like the old, is a breakable covenant which includes within it covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers. 38 This may fit well with a covenant of grace rubric that sees continuity in the make-up of covenant communities across both testaments. But Wellum s evaluation is pertinent: In the Old Testament promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:29 34) and its fulfillment in Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8, 10), the nature of the covenant communities are not the same, which entails a difference in the meaning and application of the covenant sign. Specifically, the change is found in the shift from a mixed community to that of a regenerate community with the crucial implication that under the new covenant, the covenant sign must only be applied to those who are in that covenant, namely, believers. The covenant sign of circumcision did not require faith for all those who received it, for a variety of reasons, even though it marked a person as a full covenant member. However, the same cannot be said of baptism. Because the church, by its very nature, is a regenerate community, the covenant sign of baptism must only be applied to those who have come to faith in Christ. It is at this point that we see the 37. On this point, see the insightful critique of Wellum in ibid., Ibid.,

19 crucial discontinuity between the old and new covenant communities, a point the paedobaptist fails to grasp. 39 Fundamentally, Reformed paedobaptists fail to see that the very nature of the covenant community has changed with the inauguration of the new covenant by our Lord Christ. The nature of the covenant community was mixed in the old covenant, as we have seen. However, the prophets looked forward to a day in which the Lord would pour out his Spirit in a new way to make the people of the community know him (Jer 31:31 34; Ezek 11:19 20; 36:25 27; Joel 2:28 32). This new covenant community, in which all the members know the Lord, is what Jesus inaugurated. Only those who know the Lord should receive the initiation sign of the covenant, baptism. 40 At the end of the day, then, our view of the make-up of the covenant community will determine who receives the ordinance of baptism. The New Testament s teaching on regenerate church membership is the most central reason why we should only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. A Definition of Baptism We come then to a definition of baptism and a discussion of how this ordinance should be applied in the life of local churches. Anglican theologian J. I. Packer succinctly captures the essence of baptism in these words: Christian baptism... is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 39. Ibid. 40. See Wellum, Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants, ; Ware, Believers Baptism View, in Wright, Baptism: Three Views, 41 47; Wellum, Beyond Mere Ecclesiology, in The Community of Jesus, ed. Kendall H. Easley and Christopher W. Morgan (Nashville: B&H, 2013), Wellum notes, The church is God s new covenant community; it is new, yet not ontologically so, given its relation to Israel of old. However, in contrast to covenant theology, one must say that the church is a regenerate, believing community now. It is not enough to say that the church, as God s new covenant community, is here now but only in an inaugurated form, so that presently it is a mixed community, like Israel, but in the future it will be a regenerate community. Of course, we still await the not-yet aspects of our redemption, but the community is already constituted as a believing, justified people, born of the Spirit and united to Christ, our covenant head ( Beyond Mere Ecclesiology, 201). 15

20 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:25 27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God s seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:13 14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3 7; Col 2:11 12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11 12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. 41 Packer s definition is insightful, but he misses the ecclesiastical focus of the commitment the one baptized is making to follow Christ in the fellowship of the church. Two Baptist confessions fill that lacuna: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself in newness of life. 42 Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord s Supper Packer, Concise Theology, Second London Confession Abstract of Principles 15. Nettles offers a concise definition: Baptism is the 16

21 Baptists have rightly emphasized both God s sovereign work displayed in baptism and the personal commitments being made by the person baptized. From the biblical, historical, and theological discussion above, we may summarize the New Testament s teaching about the meaning of baptism to include the following elements. In the first place, baptism symbolically associates the one baptized with the completed work of Christ in dying for sinners and rising for their justification. 44 Two further meanings flow from this symbolic union. Baptism symbolizes that a person has been cleansed from sin, that sins are forgiven and the person has been raised to new life in Christ. In addition to that, baptism entails the individual s pledge to faithfully follow after Christ in the new life. Finally, baptism signifies that Jesus has inaugurated his kingdom in this world; the new covenant has dawned. For this reason, baptism has a corporate, churchly component. Those baptized are to be members of the body of Christ expressed in local churches. 45 Baptism in the Church How then do we apply this understanding of baptism to the life of local churches? I will answer that by noting four important aspects of baptism: its close relationship to the gospel, the subject of baptism, baptism s mode, and the relationship of baptism to church membership. These four matters, in turn, will help us to answer three significant questions: When immersion in water of a believer in Jesus Christ performed once as the initiation of such a believer into a community of believers, the church (Thomas J. Nettles, Baptist View: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ s Saving Work, in Armstrong, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, 25). 44. E.g., Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 354; although Allison also highlights the importance of the baptized person s identification with the triune God based on the trinitarian name into which one is baptized in Matt 28:19 (ibid., ), we also note that in Acts often baptism was done in the name of the Son only (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 29:5). 45. See further John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), ; Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, ; Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012),

22 should a church baptize someone? Should children professing faith in Christ be baptized? And who should perform baptisms? 1. Baptism s Relationship to the Gospel Baptism is significant for the life of the church and the individual Christian because it is a picture of the gospel. In baptism we are reminded once again of Christ s death for sinners. More than that, even, we are assured of Christ s forgiveness. This is Paul s logic in Romans 6: At the point of conversion, the Christian does not only receive what Christ has done for him; he is commanded to commit himself to living under the lordship of Jesus. Now that Christ has saved him, he is to live in obedience to him. 47 Baptism reminds the believer that he is no longer who he used to be, and so he should now live for Christ (Rom 6:1 4). He is a new creation, one who has been raised to walk in newness of life (ESV). In fact, baptism is so clearly tied with the death of Christ and the necessity of personal faith in him, that sometimes the apostles could use shockingly strong language about it. For instance, Paul spoke of the symbol (baptism) as if it were the reality (forgiveness) itself. He declared, And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16 ESV). Of course, in Paul s mind baptism does not literally wash one s sins away like water washes away dirt. Rather, Christians sins are forgiven because of Christ s death, the benefits of which they receive by personal faith alone (e.g., Rom 3:21 26; 5:1). But baptism is a clear picture of the fact that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). The one baptized is saved by calling on the name of Christ, and baptism symbolizes that the one baptized has been re-born as a new creature in Christ. The old man was buried. The new man is risen with Christ. It is for reasons such as these that we are compelled by the New Testament to stress the significance of baptism. Out of faithfulness to our Lord and his apostles, we must stress what they stressed. In its 46. I have previously noted Col 2:11 12 and 1 Pet 3:21 in this regard. 47. For example, Rom 12:1ff.; Eph 4:1ff; Col 3:1ff. 18

23 essence, then, baptism is a sign that the person baptized has died to sin and has been raised to new life in Christ. Moreover, the baptismal candidate pledges to walk in faithfulness to Christ from that time forward. Therefore, Paul said in very short fashion, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). 2. The Subject of Baptism Who should be baptized? In the New Testament, baptism is only contemplated for believers, as we have said throughout these chapters. Only those who have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation should be baptized. 48 This is evident with Jesus commission to his disciples in Matthew 28, the expansion of the early church in Acts, and the teaching of the Epistles. The New Testament lucidly requires that believers alone be baptized. 3. The Mode of Baptism Baptism should be done by immersing the baptized person in water because the Greek word baptizo means to dip, to immerse, or to plunge. 49 The New Testament authors could have used other words if they wanted to convey the meaning of sprinkling (Heb 9:13). Immersion in water was the practice of the New Testament (e.g., Matt 3:16; Mark 1:5; John 3:23; Acts 8:36 38). We have already seen that baptism alone does not save anyone. No aspect of baptism immersion or anything else is intrinsically salvific. Nonetheless, immersion in water is significant because of the symbolic truth taught by putting a person under water and then bringing him up again. Three of the texts previously mentioned display the logic of immersion (Rom 6:3 4; Col 2:11 12; 1 Pet 3:21). Each of these passages draws our attention first of all to Jesus Christ and his completed work on behalf of believers. Jesus died, was buried, and was raised to life on the third day. This is the gospel we proclaim (see 1 Cor 15:1 4). Each 48. Hammett, Biblical Foundations, ; Ware, Believers Baptism View, See Hammett, Biblical Foundations, ; Nettles, Baptist View, in Armstrong, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, 26 27; Ware, Believers Baptism View, 21 23; Allison, Sojourners and Strangers,

24 component of it is essential to our salvation. Jesus died, bearing the wrath of God we deserved against our sin. His sacrifice was acceptable to God, so Jesus was raised to new life, just as he had promised before he died. Because he was raised, we know that those who put their faith in him will be justified (Rom 4:25). They will be saved because they are united with Christ. Union with Christ is one of the keys to understanding the biblical doctrines of salvation and baptism. Union with Christ pervades the apostle s thought in Ephesians 1 and 2. Believers were chosen by God in Christ (1:4); they have redemption and an inheritance in him (1:7, 11); they have been sealed by the Holy Spirit in him (1:13). Paul said the foundation of this union is Christ s work for believers. As unbelievers, all persons are dead in sin and unable to save themselves (2:1 3). But because of God s great love for his people and his mighty power on their behalf, God raises them to new life in a parallel fashion to the way he raised Jesus to life on the third day (2:4 6). Thus God made us alive together with Christ (2:5) and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (2:6). Believers have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection. As he died, so we were dead. And as he was raised to life, we have been raised to life in him. This is what being immersed in water portrays to us. We have died to our old self and have been raised to walk in new life following Christ our Lord. Immersion is important for what it shows us of this pattern of burial and resurrection. It portrays the gospel and reminds us of our union with our Savior. 4. Baptism and Church Membership Baptism is closely tied to church membership. It is to be performed under the authority of a local fellowship, and it should be required of all those who seek membership in the church because of its connections to the gospel. Baptism is essential because, according to Scripture, we publicly profess faith and commit to following after Jesus by being baptized. If a Christian has not been baptized following his conversion to Christ, he is not being obedient. The Lord summons his followers to be baptized, 20

25 and so it s one component of observing everything he commanded (see Matt 28:18 20). What is the relationship, then, between baptism and church membership? To answer this question, we need to recognize in the first place that the New Testament never contemplates any persons as members of the church except those who are regenerate, that is, who have been born again. As I have argued previously, in the apostles minds there is no such thing as a member of a local fellowship who is not a believer in Jesus Christ. Church members are those who have been born again, who are children of light, children of the day (1 Thess 5:5). 50 In the second place, baptism is the entrance marker of a converted person into the membership and accountability of a local church. 51 A convert to Jesus should be baptized out of obedience to the New Testament. The New Testament never alludes to an instance of a person being a church member without having been baptized (e.g., Acts 2:41; 16:15, 31 33; 18:8; 19:5; Gal 3:27). Biblical religion is a corporate affair, and baptism is a key marker of a new believer s entrance into the life of the church. It is his profession of faith in Jesus, publicly stating that he has committed himself to Christ and Christ s concerns, including Christ s church. This is a central part of walking in newness of life. Baptism also visibly portrays the church s commitment to the well being and care of the newly baptized person as it receives him into membership On the necessity of church membership, see Benjamin L. Merkle, The Biblical Basis for Church Membership, in Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline, ed. John S. Hammett and Benjamin L. Merkle (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), In summary, baptism is best understood as the rite of commitment. It is the ordained occasion when one confesses that she or he has made a faith commitment to Christ. That commitment to Christ is lived out in a commitment to Christ s church and leads to a life lived out in union with him (Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 267). 52. See Hammett, Biblical Foundations, It is for this reason that I oppose open membership, in which a Baptist church allows a nonbaptized person (i.e., one not baptized after confessing faith in Christ) to join the church if he is not convinced that believer s baptism is required. Like many other aspects of church life (e.g., church government and whether women can serve as elders), baptism is a matter of corporate concern. The church should be able to decide its doctrine of baptism and require those who want to join its membership to submit to it in this matter. 21