Wilson on Infant Baptism 1
---> January 13th, 2006 by annie
I have put off my theological reading the past month while enjoying holidays and our new baby. But the new year is here and its time to get reading and learning again! Earlier I had written about our change from dispensationalism to covenant theology and our decision to baptise our children. I understand the Scriptural teachings on this enough to be certain of our decision, yet not well enough to feel that I can simply explain why to our family or teach the doctrines to another. Thus, I am reading Doug Wilson’s book on Infant Baptism to try and gain more coherence and formulate as simple as possible an explination to give to our Baptist family! Here I am going to basically post a string of quotes gleaned from Wison’s book, To A Thousand Generations. I can’t write any better than Wilson and since I have to give the book back, I want to save a few tidbits somewhere.
This post will come in a few installments, as I don’t often have a large chunk of time to write it all, nor do most of you have a large chunk to read it in!
God, who cannot lie or change, sealed [an everlasting] covenant with Abraham in an oath, taken in His own name, so that believers throughout all history might have strong consolation (Heb. 6:18). . . This covenant with Abraham, confirmed to him in Christ, was a covenant which by its very nature could not be annulled (Gal. 3:17). We can see how God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham; it is by the blood of this everlasting covenant that we as Christians are saved (Heb. 13:20). The covenant made with Abraham is still in force today; this glorious covenant made with Abraham mellennia ago is nothing other than the new covenant.
I have learned so much the past year and discovered such rich, coherent theology. Many passages that never made sense before have started to become clear. At the same time, I am more aware of the unavoidable paradoxes of faith and life as well as more clear on which doctrines are essential and worth dividing people over and which ones aren’t. I have come to consider infant baptism to be the doctrine and practice presented in God’s word and a responsibility of believing parents. However, I don’t consider it a doctrine or practice that we are to break fellowship over and I am thankful that my church allows both padeobaptists and baptists to become members.
Most people I know, including myself a year ago, have no idea what the reformed padeobaptist tradition teaches concerning infant baptism. I hope to make it more clear to those who might drop by! The first step in understanding biblical infant baptism (I would hold that Catholic infant baptisms are not administered rightly.) is to realize that the entire Old Testament was not thrown out with the New Covenant. In Romans, Paul makes clear that the law is fading away and being replaced, but the promises given to Abraham and the covenant made with him are not part of the Law; that refers to the Mosaic covenant. That is how Abraham is the father of faith, of our faith. Christ’s blood is the seal of the Abrahamic covenant. Both we and Abraham are saved by this covenant blood through faith.
To get your own copy of this concise, excellent book, see “The Library” for an Amazon link. Besides addressing the issue of infant baptism, Wilson does an outstanding job in this book of summarizing the relationship between the covenant of Abraham, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ. Hey, Before I copy the entire book on my blog, I suppose I could go order one too, eh? 
Posted in Theology | 
January 13th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I was wondering if you were aware of Doug Wilson’s involvement with the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision movement. Its a growing controvsery within Reformed circles. I’ve just been learning about it myself and its quite disconcerting.
If you are interested in knowing more about covenant theology or Reformed padeobaptism, I would check out the transcripts of my own pastor’s sermons on the sacraments. http://www.christreformed.org/resources/index.shtml?main
Scroll down to Lectures- Sacraments. They are excellent- they convinced me
In the next couple of months, Michael Horton is coming out with a new book about Covenant Theology which I can’t wait to pounce on. Should be amazing.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:16 am
May I plug my pastor’s little book on this subject? John Sartelle has a very general, but concise introduction to the subject that also deals with typical objections. It’s a standard in conservative presby circles.
I am waiting for a treatment of this subject, however, which, instead of emphasizing the distinctives, describes the Reformed view with respect to the elements by which it is continuous with so-called paedobaptists (Lutherans, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.)
Of course, I really feel the need to offer an alternative to Wilson b/c he’s all about the propositions
January 13th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Erm, how does one edit one’s idiot comment? I messed up the hyperlink. :-p
January 13th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Joel - LOL! Email me what you wanted to link to and I will fix it.
Have you read Wilson’s book? Just curious. It dealt primarily in contrast to the baptist position and didn’t speak of Lutheran/catholic/orthodox at all.
That sounds like a book YOU need to write, Joel! Reserve me the first copy!
Jennifer - I am aware of Federal Vision and actually sympathetic to it so far. I am hoping to read up on it better and post about it some this year. Thanks for the reminder!
I welcome all such book recomendations. Thank you!
January 13th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Annie- I would encourage you to listen to John Robbins lecture on the Auburn Avenue theology- its on monergism.com’s audio resources page under the Ronald Taber lectures. Its near the bottom of the page. He gives a great overview of the theology. He is critical of it, but I also believe that he is very fair. It really helped me understand what is really going on within the movement. It goes much deeper than denying a covenant of works (thereby rewriting the Heidelberg catechism and Westminster Standards). It deals with the very nature of religious epistemology. I always listen to that stuff cleaning house or nursing my son. Makes the time go faster.
Joel- is this the John Sartelle of ‘Sinners and Saints?’ I LOVE that show. Those guys take no prisoners
Oh, and thanks for letting me put in my shameless plug for my own pastor’s stuff. Dr. Riddlebarger is so concise and clear.
January 13th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Infant baptism has long been of interest to me, too. What I don’t like about it, however, is how it seems to promote a, “taking salvation for granted” assumption, and therefore the parents/church never question the salvation of their children…nor do the children. While this is, in some ways, a good thing if we are to believe by faith that the children of the righteous will also be righteous, it is also a dangerous thing. There are far too many stories from individuals who assumed their salvation until confronted with someone from “the outside” who took the time to explain what salvation WAS…upon which, the “supposedly covenented” realized that they actually *weren’t* partakers of the covenant, having never actually believed in their heart (and often never realizing that they were supposed to). You have to wonder how many more there are who never do hear, and never are actually born again.
The weakness of those who do not believe (that the children of the righteous partake of the covenant) is that their children are often assumed to be NOT a part of the church. This is so wrong.
But the weakness of the padaobaptist view is that salvation is assumed, and often altogether left out of instruction. Whereas Scripture makes plainly clear that a man must CHOOSE (whether one feels God causes that choice or man chooses on his own). Regeneration into the Kingdom of God does not happen when a human is born. Water baptism of infants is supposed to be a covenental symbol of our faith in the promise of God to the righteous. It is not a guarantee.
January 13th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Molly- I totally appreciate where your coming from. Let me see if I can assuage some of your concerns about the issue. I think it behooves us as parents to preach the gospel to our covenant children. We are commanded to by God. A child should never grow up in a Christian home where that is not the case. Parents who are remiss in teaching their children the faith are violating God’s commandments. I would wonder about the parents.
Scripture does not teach that man chooses God. In fact, it is replete with verses which teach that it is God who draws the sinner. Even Calvinists would not say that God does actively causes the sinner to choose him. Its a misrepresentation of the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit to say so. Baptism, like circumcision in the OT, is the initiation of sorts into the New Covenant. Like circumcision, it is not a guarantee of salvation, although people like Doug Wilson would disagree with me on that point.
January 14th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Jennifer - Again, I am sympathetic to the federal vision. I believe that the modernistic religious epistemology needs reformation. Christianity and the knowledge of Chirst ought not be reduced to the language of one philosophical era alone. In addition, I don’t afford the Heidelberg and Westminster divine status, nor even the importance of the ecumenical creeds. They are theological documents created by imperfect, uninspired men within a specific historical and philosophical context. I think they are wonderful and mostly agree with them, probably 95%, however, I don’t think they above any revision whatsoever.
Thank you for the link and suggestions for reading. I want to understand the issue as deeply as I can and will check those out! I love to listen to teaching during my day as well. I am considering getting an ipod for that reason alone!
Molly - You are very right to point out the failures and abuses on poth sides of the doctrine. Sinful man has a way of messing anything up, eh? You bring up some great points which I hope to hit on in the future posts.
However, in the teachings I have encountered and the attitude of our church, salvation is NOT assumed and the warnings of apostasy are taken seriously. Praise the Lord!
Further, the correctness of the doctrine ought not hinge on the failures of the church to follow it, lest Christ be judged by the sins of the church. Let all men be a lair and God will remain true!
You said that baptism is “a covenental symbol of our faith in the promises of God to the righteous.” What changed me to paedobaptism is the argument from scripture that it is a symbol of the promise, of the objective saving work of Christ, and not our subjective faith. I will post this argument when I am able, we have company this weekend.
Thanks for the great discussion!
Jennifer - I don’t think Doug Wilson would disagree with you about it not being a guarantee of salvation. In fact, he explicitly states thus in his book and spends an entire chapter on the very real possibility of apostasy from the covenant body.
January 14th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Annie, I think I will order this book (if amazon Germany has it…) and have a look at the suggested ones to. Infant baptism has interested me for a long time. I was baptized as an infant, but only became a Christian myself when I was 17. Since then I have struggled with it that/if I could/could not have a “baptism of faith”, meaning a baptism as an outward sign/statement of my faith in Christ. (Not very coherent sentence, I know :)) So this really interests me!
January 14th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Annie, I certainly don’t consider the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards as divinely inspired, but these men call themselves Reformed and yet can’t subscribe to the Reformed creeds, catechisms and confessions without revision. I just find it interesting, that’s all. Isn’t the definition of Reformed theology sort of synonymous with the Reformed confessions etc.? Sure they can subscribe to 95% of what’s in there, but I’m just not sure how you can call yourself Reformed if you can’t assent to the standards.
Just curious what reading you’ve done on the FV and Auburn Avenue theology. I’m not asking to be a smarty-pants ;-). I’m just learning about it all myself and would like some resources to look at.
As your original post wasn’t meant as a catalyst to debate the FV, I’m going to bow out here. I appreciate the grace and patience you’ve shown me in this discussion. I hope to come back and get my “hands dirty”, so to speak, when you actually post on this issue
Cheers!
January 14th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Jeannine - How interesting to study the issue from your perspective - I am interested to hear your thoughts as you progress. Please come back and link to any posts you make. I will try to remember to check your blog . . . I need to add you to my bloglines.
Jennifer - Thank you for being so gracious! You are welcome to come and debate me here anytime! I love civilized and lively discussion. I have not read much about Auburn Ave. directly, but have read much of Leithart’s and Wilson’s posts and a few books. (See the Library for favorites.)
My greatest frustration in blogging is that I just DON’T have the time to read and write and study as much as I want. Three babies in four years doesn’t make for alot of ‘down’ time! So its hard for me, because I want to bring up and discuss these issues, but there is no way I can have the breadth of research that I want to have before talking about it.
So thanks to all for engaging in discussion with a fellow learner and by no means expert!
January 15th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Hey CEM,
You might also want to take a look at New Covenant Theology. Many people surprisingly have not even heard of it. They have heard about Ct and Disp-ism, but not NCT.
God Bless,
Raj
Syracuse, NY
January 15th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Annie- tell me about it! I don’t know how you do it! I just have one at the moment and I feel like I have no time to read and study anything substantial, let alone blog about it. I knew I was opening a can of worms by bringing up the FV. I told my husband how unprepared I felt to talk about it and how I probably shouldn’t have said anything. I’m rarely able actually finish the debate, know what I mean? Thanks for creating a safe haven for busy moms to come participate in some intellectual stimulation. I weighed in on a discussion on a “Christian” message board a few months back and was vilified for being a Calvinist. I didn’t appreciate it and I never went back. At least here, there is respectful dialogue going on, you know?
Hey, did you listen to the White Horse Inn’s interview with Doug Wilson? Its still up on their oneplace site if you’re interested. Leave it to Dr. Horton to ask the tough questions, but I always appreciate Pastor Wilson’s humor and deliberate clarity. He is very careful with what he says and I’ve always liked that about him.
January 15th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Annie, I actually agree with padaobaptism, personally. My husband does somewhat, at least in that he sees a very strong case for it. But…it’s not where *we* are right now, not what our church gathering believes, and we feel no strong compulsion to leave over an issue like this, or make it something big. Nor do I feel a strong compulsion to make it an issue of contention between my husband and myself. LOL… So…our children are unbaptised, except for my 7 year old who is about to be.
But, I just wanted to say that I’m with ya in theory. 
January 16th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Molly - Both Wilson and our church allow the head of household to decide on the matter - it is not necessary for membership. I think that is wise, as I mentioned before, for it ought not be a matter to break fellowship over, or as you say make it an issue of contention.
I wanted to post the arguments for it, because it seems that most credobaptists don’t even know the paedo argument. I certainly didn’t until this year. Many seem to think that reformed paedobaptism is like Catholic baptism and all good evangelicals know that is *bad*. We had to reassure Tommy’s parents several times that we didn’t think this baptism saved the girls automatically nor that it magically wshed away their original sin (the latter being the catholic doctrine.)
Thank you for dropping by! Hope you are surviving the Alaska winter!