The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant

For anyone--credo-baptist, paedo-baptist, or "on the fence"--interested in more about the topic of baptism and the covenant, I highly recommend the audio presentation by William O. Einwechter called "The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant," sold by Vision Forum. Mr. Einwechter is a covenantal baptist, theonomist, pastor, husband, and father of ten. His presentation is Biblical, well-researched, charitable, and thorough, including responses to paedo-baptist objections.

Are the Children of Covenant Believers Members of the Covenant by Baptism?

Over at Iron Ink, I commented on an article where the blog author gave his answer to the question, "Is It Possible to Be Both Theonomic and Baptist?" This led to a "discussion" over baptism and the covenant.

The paedo-baptist commenters said such things as as: we don't evangelize our children because we assume they are saved, God commands believers to bring our infants to the baptismal font, bringing the gospel to your children and waiting for a profession of faith before baptizing them is "wrong" and encourages "making a decision for Christ" (Arminian) soteriology, and babies born of believers are saved and in "the covenant."

I won't be putting Iron Ink in the side bar because of the error of hyper-Calvinism promoted on their blog.

However, I will be responding to the comments in this article over a series of posts.

The Baptist Catechism on Baptism

Q. 96: How do baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6-7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3).


Q. 97: What is baptism?
A. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19), to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27); of remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38, 22:16); and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).


Q. 98: To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance toward God, faith in and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, and to none other (Matt. 3:6, 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:37-38, 8:36-38).


Q. 99: Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?
A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither command or example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them to baptize such (Prov. 30:6; Luke 3:7-8).


Q. 100: How is baptism rightly administered?
A. Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ's institution, and the practice of the apostles (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38, 10:48; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of men.


Q. 101: What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized?
A. It is the duty of such as are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Acts 2:41-42, 5:13-14, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5; Luke 1:6).

Brief Theonomy Explanation

I enjoyed this brief explanation of theonomy occasioned by a disagreement on some discussion thread on American Vision, I think.

"...The humanist, however, will assert all types of accusations and hysteria against the theonomist expressing its outrage that theonomy teaches that treason against the family, and not the State, is punishable by death. The Christian humanist is likewise appalled because we assert that adultery, for example, is a crime as well as sin, no different than murder is a crime as well as a sin. He then imagines some ecclesiastical hierarchy and "Theocratic State" is really at bottom of the theonomists thinking. This is in only in his imagination.

Another example might be the dietary laws, while most theonomists recognize these have been changed, humanists will assert all types of outlandish arguments that we might outlaw pork and lobster, for example. Of course, they will assert such arguments in disparaging jest. Their alternative is the FDA regulating every single bite of food you can purchase anywhere, you open your refridgerator and you'll find governmentally regulated cheese, milk, meat, eggs and in the end a governmentally regulated 1.6 gallon federal flush. But, oh, the horrors of possibly finding pork or lobster verbotten! :lol: It's all really quite silly and simply the necessary tactics utilized when they know they have no valid argument against our thesis..."

Read the entire response here.

Unfortunately, the "Les" person here being responded to appears to be a Baptist.

May I say something to my Baptist brethren?

I would recommend that before any Reformed Baptist anywhere publicly, on a discussion thread or a sermon or a blog article or anything, argues against theonomy, that he make effort to UNDERSTAND what he is talking about.

Please, for the sake of your Reformed Baptist brethren and for the sake of the Lord of intellectual honesty and truthful witness-bearing (Jesus Christ), learn what theonomy is.

Your pastors are not good sources because they don't know what it is either. They haven't bothered to read the books by theonomists which explain the theonomic position.

Find out what theonomy is from theonomists--read their books and articles, listen to their speeches. That way, you can be sure that you are getting an accurate representation of theonomy. Hearsay is more likely to be a misrepresentation than a representation, especially with silly books such as Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (TARC).

(If you've read TARC, you might consider reading No Other Standard by Greg L. Bahnsen, in which he defends theonomy against the critics. One interesting thing he does as a preface before each chapter is quote the critic, and then then quote one or another of his other books, showing this has already been answered. He charitably assumes that the critics have bothered to do their homework and actually have read that which they are critiquing.)

We don't want Baptists to further exacerbate their existing reputation of going into theonomy debates ignorant.

Even if you disagree with theonomy (and preferably before you disagree with theonomy), at least know what it is.

Strawman arguments (including ad hominem, fear-mongering, and vague suspicion) are worthy only of dismissal, and the one who argues thusly gains a reputation for fallacial argumentation and, possibly, stupidity or laziness. The only argument a theonomist will be interested in is a Biblical argument.

At least read Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg L. Bahnsen first. Thoroughly and with an open Bible.

And if it really is just too much to bother with, then please don't assume that you "pretty much get" the "gist" of "where those people are coming from." This is fearful imagination talking, with nothing but hearsay and vague suspicions to go on. Don't speak false witness or gossip. Just stick with reading the Bible as if it were the Word of God and True. You can't go wrong that way.

Just because our paedo-baptist brothers are wrong in their belief that covenantal and reformed Biblical theology requires the baptism of infants (unbelievers), doesn't mean we have to parade our own ignorance.

A Response from a Theonomic Paedo-Baptist

I’m in the middle of reading Greg L. Bahnsen’s No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics. What a dear Christian brother Dr. Bahnsen was! I look forward to seeing him in the resurrection.

And what a great and wonderful providence of God that I should read these words two days after hearing my pastor’s story.

An excerpt from No Other Standard:

“…to say that equal civil protection cannot and should not be afforded without qualification to any and all “religious” commitments is not at all to imply that the civil magistrate has the right to take unto himself ecclesiastical authority. Just as surely as the Old Testament forbade kings to arrogate priestly functions to themselves (e.g., the case of Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26), the New Testament separates “the keys” of the kingdom from the “sword” which the state bears (cf Matt. 16:19; Rom. 13:4; 2 Cor. 10:4). There is no Biblical warrant for thinking that the civil magistrate has either the competence or the divinely given authority to settle all religious matters of doctrine.

The law of God does not, contrary to popular misconception, allow the civil courts to judge heretics or resolve theological disputes between different schools of Christian thought. Thus theonomists readily and fervently insist upon the “pluralist” [GD: “pluralism” among Christian denominations] view of the state found in our best Reformed heritage and even the U.S. Constitution. Lutherans should not use civil power to persecute Presbyterians (and vice versa, etc.), and the federal government should not establish Presbyterianism (or Anglicanism, etc.) as the state church.

There is indeed a line to be drawn beyond which the civil magistrate is not to step in matters of faith and worship. But the theonomist would argue that this line is to be drawn by the exegesis of God’s written word—not by some authority higher than the Bible, nor by the equivocal slogan of “equal protection for all,” nor by some individual’s interpretation of the lowest common denominator in religion. Religious liberty is too precious a commodity to be grounded upon anything other than God’s authority, expressed in His infallible and unchanging, written word. It must be understood and applied in theonomic fashion.”

Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pdf version, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, p. 188

An Open Letter to a Theonomist Paedo-Baptist

Dear Theonomist Paedo-Baptist:

I'm writing to you because I've read many of your books, ordered many CDs from you, and attended at least two conferences put on by you. I share a reformed viewpoint and a theonomic ethical viewpoint with you, and Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg Bahnsen is one of my favorite books after the Holy Bible.

I have looked for opportunities to support a variety of theonomic causes and organizations and speakers, and to speak a word about the authority of all of God's word and His righteous law as the standard for life and godliness first for Christians and then for all the world, as we believers, by God's grace, work out the Great Commission.

I belong to a reformed baptist church assembly.

Thinking highly of you and your ministry, I want to ask your opinion about something.

My pastor recently spoke against theonomy (and Christian reconstruction) to our congregation, and this talk is on our church's web site as well. In his teaching, he shared something that he said he knew for a fact actually happened (and I certainly believe him).

Apparently, a paedo-baptist theonomist brother told my pastor's baptist friend, that, although he loved him like a brother, if they (theonomists) ever gained power, he (the baptist brother) would have to be executed for heresy because he would not baptize his infant children. My pastor, thank God, did qualify his anecdote with the statement that it was only the "radical end of the theonomic movement spectrum" who believe this way, not all theonomists. Unfortunately, the damage is done.

Would you be willing to publicly take a stand against this kind of executing-brethren talk? I feel confident in stating that this kind of thinking and talk is most injurious to a theonomic revival ever taking place in American churches. Unfortunately, I do not know if this person was ever disciplined for his evil speech to his baptist brother, or what happened after this conversation took place.

What would you think if you heard that a reformed baptist theonomist told a paedo-baptist brother that if they ever gained power, the paedo-baptist brother would have to executed for heretically baptizing unbelievers because in the administration of the Old Covenant, Israelites were instructed to circumcise their (male) babies at 8 days of age?

Now, I don't think for a moment that God's law calls for executing baptist believers--no, not even of a dispensational stripe--or paedo-baptist believers, for that matter, of course. However, there are currently many who will never pick up any pro-theonomy book *ever,* and will shun theonomy as a grave error, and will teach others to do so, because there are people who claim to be theonomist who apparently actually believe that God's law calls for executing "heretical" baptist brothers (despite their oh-so-heartwarming regret at having to do so).

You may find this to be something worth addressing.

I do not run in paedo-baptist circles, and I have no idea how widespread this horrific misconception of God's law is among theonomic paedo-baptists. In your experience, do many theonomic paedo-baptists think this way?

Sincerely,
GentleDove

UPDATE: Please read A Response from a Theonomic Paedo-Baptist.