Baptism and Covenant: Understanding Infant Baptism's Significance

Devotional

Day 1: Sola Scriptura and the Quest for Truth

The debate over infant baptism is deeply rooted in the principle of "Sola Scriptura," where both sides strive to align their practices with Scripture. The absence of explicit New Testament directives necessitates reliance on inferences, urging patience and charity in our discussions. This principle calls believers to seek truth through Scripture, acknowledging that not all answers are directly provided, and thus, we must approach such topics with humility and openness. The journey of understanding baptism through the lens of Scripture is not just about finding answers but also about fostering a spirit of unity and love within the community. [01:15]

"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (Romans 15:4, ESV)

Reflection: In what areas of your faith journey do you find yourself relying on inferences from Scripture? How can you approach these areas with patience and charity today?

Day 2: The Covenant Connection

While circumcision and baptism are not identical, they share a significant relationship as signs of God's covenant. Circumcision was a sign of the old covenant, and baptism is a sign of the new covenant, both indicating inclusion in God's covenant community. This connection highlights the continuity of God's promises and the evolving nature of His covenant with His people. Understanding this relationship helps believers appreciate the depth and richness of God's covenantal love and the ways it manifests in different eras. [06:45]

"And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." (Genesis 17:7, ESV)

Reflection: How does understanding the relationship between circumcision and baptism deepen your appreciation for God's covenantal promises? How can this understanding influence your view of community inclusion?

Day 3: The Silent Testament of Inclusion

The New Testament's silence on explicitly commanding or prohibiting infant baptism suggests a continuity of covenantal inclusion. The Apostle Paul's language in 1 Corinthians implies that the children of at least one believing parent are considered holy, echoing the Old Testament's inclusion of children in the covenant community. This silence invites believers to reflect on the nature of inclusion and the ways God sets apart His people, encouraging a broader understanding of community and belonging. [34:06]

"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)

Reflection: How does the idea of covenantal inclusion challenge or affirm your understanding of who belongs in the faith community? How can you extend this understanding to others in your life?

Day 4: Historical Echoes of Faith

The historical practice of infant baptism, as evidenced by early church writings, supports the argument for continuity. The absence of early protest against infant baptism suggests it was an assumed practice, consistent with the covenantal understanding of God's promises. This historical perspective invites believers to consider the weight of tradition and the ways it informs contemporary faith practices, encouraging a dialogue between past and present understandings of baptism. [27:07]

"Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." (Hebrews 13:7, ESV)

Reflection: How does the historical practice of infant baptism influence your view of tradition in the church? In what ways can you engage with historical practices to enrich your faith today?

Day 5: Baptism as a Covenant Sign

Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of the covenant, not a conveyance of redemption. It symbolizes the promises of God and the inclusion of believers and their children in the covenant community. As believers seek to understand and apply these truths, they must remain open to the guidance of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. This understanding of baptism as a sign encourages a deeper exploration of its symbolic meaning and its role in the life of faith. [36:53]

"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12, ESV)

Reflection: How does viewing baptism as a covenant sign rather than a conveyance of redemption change your perspective on its significance? How can you live out the promises symbolized in your baptism today?

Sermon Summary

In our exploration of baptism, particularly the question of infant baptism, we find ourselves navigating a complex theological landscape. The heart of this discussion is rooted in the principle of "Sola Scriptura," where both sides of the debate earnestly seek to align their practices with Scripture. The absence of explicit New Testament directives regarding infant baptism necessitates reliance on inferences drawn from Scripture, urging us to exercise patience and charity in our discussions.

The relationship between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament is pivotal. While there is no identity between the two, there is a significant relationship. Circumcision was a sign of the old covenant, and baptism is a sign of the new covenant. Both serve as signs of God's covenant with His people, though they differ in form and application. In the Old Testament, circumcision was commanded for the children of believers, signifying inclusion in the covenant community. This practice raises the question of whether the New Testament continues this inclusion through baptism.

The New Testament's silence on explicitly commanding or prohibiting infant baptism suggests a continuity of covenantal inclusion. The Apostle Paul's language in 1 Corinthians regarding the sanctification of an unbelieving spouse for the sake of the children implies a covenantal setting apart, indicating that the children of at least one believing parent are considered holy. This covenantal language echoes the Old Testament's inclusion of children in the covenant community.

The historical practice of infant baptism, as evidenced by early church writings, further supports the argument for continuity. The absence of early protest against infant baptism suggests it was an assumed practice, consistent with the covenantal understanding of God's promises.

Ultimately, baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of the covenant, not a conveyance of redemption. It symbolizes the promises of God and the inclusion of believers and their children in the covenant community. As we seek to understand and apply these truths, we must remain open to the guidance of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Key Takeaways

1. Sola Scriptura and Baptism: The debate over infant baptism is deeply rooted in the principle of "Sola Scriptura," where both sides strive to align their practices with Scripture. The absence of explicit New Testament directives necessitates reliance on inferences, urging patience and charity in our discussions. [01:15]
2. Circumcision and Baptism: While circumcision and baptism are not identical, they share a significant relationship as signs of God's covenant. Circumcision was a sign of the old covenant, and baptism is a sign of the new covenant, both indicating inclusion in God's covenant community. [06:45]
3. Covenantal Inclusion: The New Testament's silence on explicitly commanding or prohibiting infant baptism suggests a continuity of covenantal inclusion. The Apostle Paul's language in 1 Corinthians implies that the children of at least one believing parent are considered holy, echoing the Old Testament's inclusion of children in the covenant community. [34:06]
4. Historical Practice: The historical practice of infant baptism, as evidenced by early church writings, supports the argument for continuity. The absence of early protest against infant baptism suggests it was an assumed practice, consistent with the covenantal understanding of God's promises. [27:07]
5. Baptism as a Sign: Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of the covenant, not a conveyance of redemption. It symbolizes the promises of God and the inclusion of believers and their children in the covenant community. As we seek to understand and apply these truths, we must remain open to the guidance of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. [36:53]
** [36:53]

Youtube Chapters

[00:00] - Welcome
[00:23] - Introduction to the Debate
[01:15] - Sola Scriptura and Baptism
[02:33] - Absence of Explicit Commands
[04:40] - Circumcision and Baptism
[06:45] - Continuity and Discontinuity
[08:09] - Signs of the Covenants
[10:12] - Circumcision as a Gospel Sign
[12:45] - Abraham and the Sign of Faith
[14:19] - Commanded Sign for Infants
[16:33] - Misunderstandings of the Sign
[19:13] - Believer's Baptism
[22:21] - Adult Baptism in the New Testament
[25:15] - Inclusivity of the New Covenant
[27:07] - Historical Practice of Infant Baptism
[34:06] - Covenant Language in 1 Corinthians
[36:53] - Baptism as a Sign of the Covenant
[40:25] - Conclusion and Prayer

Sermon Clips

My working assumption, when this debate arises among believers and of those who are committed to the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” from the Reformation, my working assumption is that both sides want to do what is pleasing to God and to be faithful to the Word of God. [00:01:36]

So in the absence of explicit teaching, both sides in this controversy are forced to rely upon inferences drawn from what is explicit in Scripture and that should, by the very virtue of that fact, force us to go the second mile in patience with one another. [00:03:22]

Now, what I want to do is take some time and look at the relationship between circumcision and New Testament baptism. And here's where it does get a little bit complicated because I often hear people say emphatically, "R.C., New Testament baptism is not circumcision. There is no equation between the two or identity between the two." [00:05:01]

Now the issue, however, is not one of identity but one of relationship. And the question is, is there any continuity between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament? If we're going to be careful and look at this in technical terms we have to see, and I think we would all agree, that there is some continuity, at least, between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. [00:06:13]

In the case of circumcision, we say it is the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. Now in Reformed theology, we would argue that part of the terms of that covenant that God makes with Abraham includes temporal, earthly blessings like descendants, like the possession of the land, real estate, and so on. [00:08:47]

But that beyond those external matters of physical inheritance, ethnic and national, is communicated the Old Testament promise of redemption unless you want to argue that people were saved in the Old Testament in a manner radically different from how they are saved in the New Testament. [00:09:17]

Now, I don't believe that circumcision was a sign of faith exclusively, that is, that the only thing that circumcision indicated or signified was faith. It signified a whole lot more than that but no less than that. Let me say it again, that circumcision signified a lot more than faith, but by no means less because the doctrine of justification by faith alone was taught throughout the Abrahamic covenant as Paul labors in Romans 3 and chapter 4 of the New Testament. [00:12:04]

And not only is it commanded to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob, but when Moses delays it, God threatens to kill him for withholding the sign of the covenant from his infant son. That's very important because here in the Old Testament, the sign of God's covenant of redemption is not only permitted to be given to the children of believers, it is commanded of God so to be done. [00:14:34]

The question is simply, should the child of a believer receive the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, as it clearly and incontestably did in the Old Testament? Now again, we recognize that there is a difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. John pointed out one – in the old covenant economy, the only people who received the sign of the covenant were males, boys, little boys. [00:23:02]

Now it just seems strange to me that if in general terms, the new covenant is more inclusive than the old covenant, why would a practice of including the children of believers in the reception of the sign of the covenant of redemption that is in practice for two thousand years would suddenly be repealed and abrogated in the New Testament without a single word? [00:25:06]

Now, here's what the Apostle Paul does say explicitly in the New Testament, namely that the offspring of at least one believing partner in a marriage. That's why for centuries churches that do practice infant baptism do not do it indiscriminately and will not baptize any infant, but only if there is a profession of faith by at least one parent. [00:33:38]

In the Old Testament, circumcision does not convey redemption; it's the sign of redemption. In the New Testament, baptism doesn't convey redemption, and it's a sign of many things. It is a sign of our cleansing. It is a sign of our regeneration. It is the sign of our sanctification. It is a sign of our being baptized with the Holy Spirit and, as John eloquently pointed out, it is a sign of our being buried with Christ and raised with Christ. [00:35:44]

Ask a question about this sermon

Chatbot

Transcript

What was the most surprising thing in this sermon?

Were there any personal stories shared?