Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, for Dr. Renahan, I think this is right in your wheelhouse.
Believers Baptism Question Posed
How do the Reformed Baptists from Scripture, in light of their covenantal theology, arrive at the conclusion that only a believer should be baptized? Yeah, that is a good question and it deserves a thorough answer. Let me summarize by saying that historically in Christian theology,
Moral Law and Positive Law
there's been a recognition that the Bible itself speaks about two kinds of law. There's moral law, which is a law that is written on the heart. It's in general revelation. It's available to all people at all times.
And that is the standard by which all people will be judged at the last day. The moral law of God. Even those who never have the Word of God, the moral law is written on their hearts. But there's another kind of law that's called positive law, or what my son Sam calls plus law, meaning it's added to the moral law.
It's not the same thing. There is a relationship between them, but it's something that is not in force until it's revealed. Positive law requires special revelation, and it is an obligation that God gives to his people to follow certain patterns, to obey certain actions. So that, for example, Abram was 99 years old and uncircumcised when God comes to him and says, circumcise yourself and all the males in your household.
Had Abram broken any of God's laws prior to that? No, of course not. He was a Gentile, and he was perfectly fine as a Gentile. It's when the Lord came to him and added that law to say, you must do this, that now there's a requirement for all of the males in Abram's family, who becomes Abraham, and they must be circumcised in order to maintain their participation in the community.
So that's an easy example of positive law. Now, what we believe is that
Positive Law and Historical Covenants
positive law belongs to, not only does it require special revelation, but it belongs to specific historical covenants. So that circumcision was in place from that revelation in Genesis 17, all the way until the coming of the New Covenant, where Paul is able to say to us, circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything. That's 1 Corinthians 7. Paul there is making a clear statement that there's a distinction between a moral law, keeping the commandments of God, and circumcision or uncircumcision.
At that point, because the New Covenant has come, they're nothing. So, we would argue that
Baptism Defined by the New Covenant
baptism is to be defined by the New Covenant itself. I think a neglected verse that deserves some thought is Mark 1.1, where Mark says, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And he's not saying, here's where I'm starting my account of Jesus. He's actually using language that refers back to the original creation, but now he's speaking in new creation terms, the beginning of the gospel.
And what's the first thing that you read as he does that?
John's Baptism as New Covenant Sign
John came baptizing. You see, John comes as the herald of Jesus as one who baptizes because the new covenant is being inaugurated in the person of Christ. You know, a question you might ask is, when is the New Covenant inaugurated? Well, I would argue that there isn't a moment, but rather there's a period of time that begins with a text like Mark 1.1 and runs all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
So you have a whole generation in which the New Covenant comes. Of course, it's focused on the cross and the resurrection. No doubt about that. But everything in the Gospels is leading up to that and is part of the anticipation of the New Covenant.
So, John comes baptizing. So, our argument is, in Scripture,
Against Transferring Circumcision to Baptism
it's illegitimate to take principles from the Old Covenant, which is done away with, and transfer them over to the New Covenant and make the recipients of baptism the same as the recipients of circumcision. Baptism needs to be defined in terms of the New Covenant, and when it's defined in terms of the New Covenant, it is a baptism that's given to believers. John didn't baptize babies. And interestingly enough, when you read some of the pedo-baptist writers, John Murray for example, John Murray wants to make John's baptism something different than Christian baptism.
And the reason for that is he's too good of an exegete. And he knows that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance and faith. We could talk about why faith is involved in John's baptism. And so he recognizes if we let John's baptism stand as a Christian baptism, then we have a real problem in terms of baptizing infants.
So he tries to separate it off, where someone like John Calvin doesn't. Calvin recognizes that that's Christian baptism. Those who were baptized by John or in the gospel period, there's no record of them having a second baptism after the day of Pentecost or anything like that. So, that's the argument in a nutshell, that it's positive law that is defined by the New Covenant, and the New Covenant only admits those who are professors of faith in Jesus.
Great.
Historical Development of Paedobaptism
I have a follow-up question because your forte is historical theology. When did that argument sort of become the way to define or the way to defend paedo-baptism, specifically because Abraham circumcised his babies, therefore we must baptize our babies. As I understand it, I doubt the fathers were baptizing based on that approach to covenant theology. That seems to me a more Reformational time?
Yeah. Well, you just answered your own question. Yeah.
Pre-Reformation Sacerdotal Infant Baptism
Prior to the Reformation, really, infant baptism is what we would call sacerdotal, meaning that it gives grace. The application of water to the body allows grace to enter the heart. And remission. The priest who does that.
So, the baby then is a Christian, and the baby is on the pathway towards heaven. The Roman Church developed the seven sacraments as the system by which that baby who has received grace and baptism, original sin being washed away, now is to pursue the sacraments in order to be saved. Well,
Reformation Shift Away from Sacerdotalism
when you come to the Reformation, that's a real problem because the Reformers no longer believe in a sacerdotal system. A sacerdotal simply means something that gives grace. It's related to sacramental, but it's not exactly the same. Sacer, grace, dotel, from the Greek word to give.
Connected with the priesthood, specifically, as the vehicle. Yes. So, they recognize that justification is by faith alone, and that the application of water to the body does not bring grace into the heart. So, something had to be done.
That's right. And
Zwingli and Covenantal Argument
Zwingli, Zurich was the first one to begin the process of arguing that it's not a sacerdotal act based on the priesthood, but rather it's that baptism is something that belongs to the covenant. And so you have this development of that argument that's worked out in the 16th century and then codified, well, in many confessions, but especially in the Westminster Confession in the 17th century. Great. Very good.
Thank you. Appreciate that.