1A. Initial thoughts about studying the sacraments within reformed theology

1B. Clarifications

Broadly by reformed theology I mean the understanding of Scripture that was forged in the days of the Protestant Reformation, that is particularly represented in the writings of John Calvin, and that is richly developed in the reformed tradition from Calvin to the present. In this tradition there are only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Having only two stands in marked contrast with Rome that has many more than two. The term sacrament is being used in general as a visible sign of a spiritual reality (Calvin, Institutes 4.14.2). They are means of grace but contrary to Rome there is no power in the elements themselves or in the church's use of those elements. I am using the term sacrament synonymously with ordinance, rite, and ritual. There is an evangelical/Protestant/biblical use of the term sacrament. And there is an evangelical (non-Catholic) practice of infant baptism. It is part and parcel in the history of reformed theology. This is evident in the practical equivalence that is drawn between reformed theology and covenant theology as done by Old (Worship, 19, from Oecolampadius and Zwingli forward "Covenant theology became the Reformed sacramental theology."). Furthermore, there is a distinctively reformed view of the Lord's Table. One way to see this is to compare it with the views of Catholics, Lutherans, and Zwinglians as Letham does (Lord's Supper 19-29) to stress "the real presence" of Christ at the table.

Finally, we can speak of a distinctively reformed view of both baptism and communion when we stress how a God-centered theology impacts the sacraments. This comes out in what is called the objectivity of the sacraments, which in a nutshell means that they give us a word from God. Primacy here is given to what God is saying to us (without removing the subjective fact that we say something as well, i.e., both objective and subjective). Thus, simply put, a man-centered theology over emphasizes what the church or what the Christian does in the observance of the sacraments. This leads to the value and importance of this study.

2B. Importance and value

1) Reformed theology is part of our heritage as Protestants. It has shaped us and will continue to do so (even if by reaction to it). The fact is that the Holy Spirit has worked in the life of the church over the centuries and across the globe. No one has a corner on truth and no one can properly live on a theological island. It is important to study things we may even oppose to avoid theological provincialism and to sharpen iron with iron. This is done to please the Lord. By working hard to test our own thinking again and again we try to weed out our own opinions so we can live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This involves a process in which we exchange error for truth.

2) The reformed view of the sacraments is rich with encouragement in the gospel as it is brought to us by means of the sacraments.

3) The heart felt matter of our children in the context of the Christian family is an undying concern of reformed theology and helps us forge a theology of the family that is oriented to baptism and communion in the community of the saints.

4) They discuss the sacraments, including infant baptism, with classic adherence to sola scriptura. Sometimes this is a surprise to Baptists (cf. Calvin, Treatise, 45: not antiquity…unless it is founded on the Word of God…not human custom…the true rule of God…His word, which alone ought to hold here. "Nowhere mentioned," p. 54 means it is not explicit but neither is it explicit that a woman may take communion, p. 55. Scriptural here refers to the "institution, nature, and substance of the sacrament."). Thus their teaching is important to study because it rests on the whole Bible.They emphasize the unity of Bible, promise to fulfillment in covenant structure. The wholeness does have its pitfalls (things can get convoluted; there are dangers, Berk. 175, with the dangers there is "the essential and profoundest basis for the defense of infant baptism.")

5) It is a God-centered theology. This impacts the understanding and use of the sacraments in important ways.

6) They exemplify and call for great diligence in the study of the word, for learning as disciples that is logical. The challenge us to do careful reasoning to the glory of God by refuting error and upholding the truth (cf. Titus 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:21). Thus Calvin is glad that some Anabaptists hold to Scripture and debate can help us see where we differ and how (Treatise, 39). When someone makes biblical claims we are called to give glory to God and "listen to see if such is the case" as this is our duty and we must be prudent (42; so with all claims to biblical truth, hence, comprehensive/exhaustive/continuous rethinking).

3B. There is a summons here to critical thinking (CT). As I see it, CT involves the four basics of contextual sensitivity (like the definition of a sacrament by Rome versus the reformers), logical skill, presuppositional awareness, and open-minded humility (OMH). With dependence on Christ for the blessing of the Spirit we use CT. It is a matter of prayerful dependence while expending much effort in careful thought. It is that we may know God better by the work of the Spirit (Eph. 1). Compare this with Pascal's two excesses and true Christianity (to exclude reason; to have nothing but reason versus submission and the use of reason). This is another way of speaking about meditation. The sovereign working of the Spirit does not discourage duty but encourages it. The sovereign God who works His will efficaciously is the one who sovereignly commands that we study and test all things. We do not have His secret counsel at our fingertips but we do have His word as our authoritative guide.

1) Contextual sensitivity. This means we see through many eyes. You look through Oliphant Old through Oecolampadius through Paul at 1 Corinthians 10. This demands careful, patient, and diligent reading in context (for each, remember where you are, cf. again the definition of a sacrament and things like means of grace). We happily work with others in the church under the leading of the Spirit. Their books are sermons. We can't look beyond Calvin until we have stood on his shoulders.

2) OMH (Open-minded humility). We are to be fair and charitable while firm and critical. Accuracy (study to handle correctly and accurately) is a supreme goal that should be pursued relentlessly. Humility begins with the recognition of two problems in philosophy, theology, and life (the homo absconditus problem and the ambivalence of human nature). Humility includes awareness of the mask-wearing problem as my problem, risk, distrust (of self), and love. Love prevents arrogance (only my answers are good and worth consideration), scorn (making others feel stupid by what I say and how I say it), leveling (destructive criticism, love will be gentle and constructive when it must criticize).

Love is the key because people are more important than arguments. But this is not an either/or of love versus truth. Truth is a supreme goal (right handling) but the manner is by love because we are talking about Christian, Christ-like, critical thinking. OM means we compare, with empathy, over time, and in an objective posture. This is a key in mutual learning as disciples (must be mutual in family of Christ). We must acknowledge the homo absconditus problem and the ambivalence of human nature.

Jewett applies OMH to the endeavor of a Baptist taking up the study of infant baptism. Note how elements of the humble spirit are expressed as he closes his preface (Infant, 5-6: truth is not all on the Baptist side; Baptist's are too often exclusivistic and intolerant, irenic and divisive. We should take up this study looking for the good, "to weigh and consider," 6). Again, recall why Calvin takes up the Anabaptist arguments (Treatise 42, listen to see; every claim to biblical truth ought to be received and weighed carefully, cf. the Berean spirit).

3) Presuppositional awareness. Presuppositions are beliefs that hold other beliefs in place in a normative way. Weak ones do this but other beliefs take precedence over them. Strong ones have nothing that takes precedence over them. When we peal it all back to the core, sola scriptura is the ultimate presupposition of the cwv, it is the ultimate presupposition of the reformers, and it is the reformers ultimate presupposition in the defense of infant baptism. It is on the level of weak/soft presuppositions that the debate exists. On this level, we have our church tradition sunglasses. We must work at (trying) to take them off at times to see how things look in a different light or in a different color. To see things differently is a plus for growth in good understanding. Otherwise, we tend to miss many good things (cf. empathetic looking for the good). Remember the Holy Spirit is working in the church across the globe and over the centuries. This is a matter of humble respect for the work of the Spirit. Thus, on quenching the Spirit, I would say in general that the Spirit is quenched by a spirit that is un-teachable being closed before the claims made by the brethren regarding Scripture (all claims are to be received to the glory of God and tested accordingly, Calvin)

For example, when some are so emotionally put off by infant baptism that they cannot give any plausibility whatsoever to the doctrine their presuppositional stance colors every aspect of the discussion and they can really get no profit. The same can be said for those who are so emotionally tied to the practice of infant baptism that it is difficult for them to remain patient with Baptist arguments. Also, someone who rejects covenant theology in a context of eschatology may have difficulty giving any value to a covenant theology argument for infant baptism. But this is too general not descending to the particulars in need of attention. Surely there is truth on both sides and we will best get at it if we can calmly identify and test our presuppositions. Presuppositional awareness is critically important. Applied to Scripture, this is what I mean when I say I hope we can become aware of and avoid many polemically induced mis-readings of the biblical text.

4) Logical Skill. In the objective posture we stressed being reasons oriented. That refers to the P in the P to C relation of an argument. An argument is a set that moves from premises (P) to conclusions (C). Spending time on the P will pay rich dividends when you get to C. P is support that involves much more than quoting a text or an author. The principle of logical consistency and thus of logical implication is fundamental. It is based on the character of God who is truth and therefore in whom there is no contradictory knowledge. We are to image God. Hence the reformed principle of "good and necessary consequence." We do this when we reason that "you shall not steal" from the days of Moses means "it is wrong to x." X stands for any modern particular like copying a computer program without permission. We can simply say, "do not steal anything that belongs to your neighbor, this belongs to him, so do not steal this, whatever this may be it is taught by implication though not expressly."

CT development is part of the underlying goal of this study in seeking to glorify God by submission to His will given in Scripture. It is helpful to state these things and remind ourselves of them as we read, discuss, analyze, and criticize. We need logical skill (skill in inferential reasoning), presuppositional awareness, context sensitivity (in Scripture and in polemics), and perhaps especially OMH.

4B. Some wrong ways to criticize infant baptism

1) Many simply condemn by association. It is Roman Catholic! But it stands in strong debate with Rome.

2) It is left over Romism and thus a case of historic remnant traditionalism. Note Calvin's use of the patristic argument and his main reply. The devotion to sola scriptura by the reformers must be taken seriously. It is driving even the doctrine of infant baptism as evident in Calvin's framing of the discussion.

3) There is no example in the NT of an infant being baptized. But there is equally no example in the NT of a child who grew up in a Christian home being baptized on confession of faith. All students of Scripture must work by good and necessary implication (as we do with doctrines like the trinity).

4) Another wrong headed way to criticize infant baptism is to say there must be faith prior to a sign or it is worthless and invalid. Calvin states that it is to argue against God to claim that those without faith cannot have the sign since that was the case as commanded by God in circumcision. So, the thing signified need not always precede the sign (Treatise, 50). Thus any general arguments against infant baptism (infants don't know what is going on, must have faith going into a sign or it is worthless, etc) fail if they argue in principle against infant circumcision (T, 50). That is why he says it is to argue against God who appointed the circumcision of infants without their knowledge, without faith on their part, etc.

5) Infant baptism is ceremonial law done away in Christ. Granted there is a setting aside of ceremonialism and thus discontinuity in the move from the OT to NT. But there is also continuity. For example, do we agree in viewing communion as the Christian Passover (cf. Warfield, "Significance of the Supper ," Shorter Writings, I, 332-338). Communion is not just a substitute for Passover, "It is not something entirely different from the Passover – or even wholly separate from it – now put into its place, to be celebrated by Christians instead of it. It is much rather only a new form given to the Passover, for the continuance of its essential substance through all time" (333). If we agree with Warfield then it is a reminder that OT rites have NT forms and at the least we have to say that may be the case for the place of infants. At bottom, continuity must not be lost in this discussion. Substance must be given to our Lord's words that He did not come to abrogate but fulfill. Christians are to look for fulfillment forms of the OT laws (Matt. 5:17).

6) An external/internal model is used to defeat infant baptism. But I want to show that this is a false model (a few comments will be made here that will be developed more fully especially in the section on "discontinuity/continuity").

This is found in Jewett when he says the type includes physical and spiritual members but the anti-type pertains to the spiritual, true seed of Abraham (236; "the promise of a seed to Abraham had a twofold reference"). But we cannot identify the true seed in the NT (we cannot peer into the heart). This means that we cannot baptize anyone and Jewett's model breaks down. We cannot say that in the OT we have physical and true seed of Abraham and in the NT only true seed who receive the sign. Many may be outwardly baptized (like being outwardly circumcised) without being the true seed of Abraham. This leaves open the question as to whether or not confession of faith is required for all to enter the NT covenant community (to enter it visibly).

Thus Jewett must speak of confession. Once he does, he returns to external side of the model where actual faith may not be present. Per this line of argument a situation like the OT is not ruled out for the NT. That is, there is outward/physical/external baptism versus true baptism of the heart in NT. Similarly, there is outward/physical/external circumcision versus true circumcision of the heart in the OT. This circumstance did not rule out the inclusion of infants in the covenant sign in the OT. Nor can it be used to argue ruling out the inclusion of infants in the covenant sign in the NT. Jewett's external to internal model fails as a criticism of infant baptism in evangelical reformed theology. In a word, this is the case because there can be a new covenant form of the old covenant inclusion of infants in the covenant sign that abides (like the Christian Passover) with many changes (as the change from circumcision to baptism, inclusion of women, washing with water only no longer using the sprinkling of blood for cleansing, etc.).

Kingdon, following Jewett, does the same thing. He says that John the Baptist "departed from the Old Covenant position and embraced the New with this demand for a new heart as the sign of Covenant membership" (6). However, in reply: 1) No one can know the heart and baptizing is then impossible. 2) And the new heart was demanded in the old as well as the new (circumcise your hearts). 3) Moreover, the new has externals like the old (an outward covenant people without the right heart). The external/internal model breaks down. Likewise we can ask: What is wrong with Kingdon's use of Jeremiah 31 on the spirituality of the new versus the externalism of the old? In the OT, many who received circumcision did not know God (34). Then he cites the contrast to "all shall know" the Lord that is promised in the new covenant. The following observations can be made with respect to the Jeremiah passage.

a) But many baptized in the church do not know the Lord.

b) Also, applied to visible church membership we cannot know the heart.

c) Jeremiah 31:31 continues the promise to Israel into the new era. So the promise to Abraham and his seed can never be abrogated (cf. Jer. 31:35-37)!

d) So how can we understand this "all shall know" promise? The way of fulfillment has a not/not yet character. Now it includes the remnant (Rom. 11;1-5; Heb.8:1-12; 9:9; 10:15-17). It also include the not yet (Rom. 11:25-27, cf. how Heb. 10:16-17 connects the new covenant with the covenant cited by Isaiah and referred to by Paul in Rom. 11:27).

e) Conclusion: we cannot simply say that including infants in the sign in the OT was simply an external type of the true seed of the NT. So we cannot say that fulfillment eliminates the sign being applied to the true seed in the NT. Actually both OT and NT have external/internal aspects. John opposes trusting in the flesh as did the OT prophets! External/internal on both sides (old and new) allows for including infants on both sides. Later, we will look at these things more closely.

5B. Perspectives and goals

Here are some basic claims that I want to stress in this study (I want to begin and end here).

1) Much good is to be gained in the reading of the reformers in general and on the sacraments in particular. There is value in the doctrine of infant baptism; we should look for it. I find it especially in the emphasis on a God-centeredness and objectivity.

2) We should do all we can to properly and wisely promote the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This means we should do all we can to accept the views that differ from our own regarding baptism especially in light of the fact that baptism is a sign of unity (one baptism).

3) I will argue that infant baptism is irregular and unnecessary but still valid. Some may wish to turn that around and even drop the valid part. It goes without saying that every reader should feel free to challenge what is presented. We do need to sharpen iron with iron (I need to do so). Students and instructors alike need OMH in abundance. And note that OMH does not mean we have no convictions.

4) Regarding communion I want to emphasize two main things.

a) The primary focus is on remembering Christ, which means that self-examination is a very subordinate thing and not the key to communion (a real and regular by-product).

b) Communion is a preaching rite and should not be a mere "tack on." It takes time to remember. And though we remember Christ every week in all preaching, communion remembering is distinct. Every week all things are rooted in Christ whatever theme is taken up; it all relates to Him and He is the center but the focus is on, say, children obeying their parents (Eph. 6). But in communion all the other things are back stage and Christ is the direct focus. Thus the importance of the remembrances (the Gospels) so that we remember along the lines of God's reminding.

1A. The Initiatory Sign Argument and the Promise Argument

1B. Basis (formulation of the premises)

To understand the confessional basis as to why the children of believers ought to be baptized, it may be helpful to begin by rewriting two forms of the argument as syllogisms so that the lines of critique can be clearly drawn. The two arguments are the initial sign argument and the promise argument. The outline of these arguments is intuitively based on the following particulars stated in the confessions: 

Infant children of believers in the NT ought to receive the baptism sign of the covenant because "the same promises" are made to them that were made to the children of Israel through the circumcision sign of the covenant (Belgic). They should receive the sign because redemption is promised to them (Heidelberg Catechism).

They are God's peculiar people and as such are in the church (Second Helvetic). "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized" (Westminster Larger Catechism).

First, why would having the same promises lead to the conclusion that they ought to be baptized? Deriving the duty of baptism from "having the same promises" must presuppose that all who have the same promises given to them receive the sign of the promises.

Second, how then do we answer this question, "To whom are the promises given?" Infants are identified as those who have the promises "because of their parents." How do we know that being of believing parents gives children the promises? It is because NT believers are the children of Abraham then so are their children.

2B. The initiatory sign argument (the command regarding the sign of entry)

For comment later, it should be obvious that a line is drawn here from circumcision as covenant sign to baptism as covenant sign.

1) The children of Abraham are commanded the sign (Gen 17:9-12, especially v. 12)

2) All children of believers are children of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29; cf. the parallel of sons of God with children of Abraham as one and by faith)

3) So all children of believers are commanded the sign (good and necessary inference).

In terms of its form, the argument is valid (cf. All Christians believe in God, Joe is a Christian, so Joe believes in God, cf. circles representing classes to show this diagrammatically).

Problems

1) But this argument equivocates on the meaning of "children of Abraham."

In the first premise it refers to the physical descendents of Abraham (when born, circumcise them on the eighth day) but in premise two it refers to the spiritual descendents of Abraham (Gentiles not born in Abraham's family are his descendents by faith).

If you try to make spiritual heritage from Galatians the norm for definition then the first premise has to refer to Abraham's spiritual descendents as the ones to be circumcised but the text commands circumcision of all born to Abraham. All his male descendents were to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth in fulfillment of God's promise to him. He was promised children though he and Sarah were old. From them would come a child of promise that ultimately refers to Christ who is of Abraham "according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:5).

But if physical descent according to promise is the mark that defines the children of Abraham in Genesis 17 then the second premise has to refer to Abraham's physical descendents as his children to whom belongs the initiatory sign. But the NT text defines the children of Abraham as Gentiles who are of the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:26f.).

2) It seems incorrect to call the children of believers the children of Abraham because of their birth (because of their birth to spiritual children of Abraham).

Why is this so? It is because in Galatians the new Israel of God, the new covenant true seed of Abraham, are such without reference to family heritage (Gal. 3:28-29: sons of God through faith…Jew…Greek…if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed…" Gal.6:15-16: the Galatians whether circumcised/Jews or uncircumcised/Gentiles are the Israel of God). To accent family heritage goes against the flow of these passages; it does not constitute membership in the Israel of God.

Therefore, it goes against the flow of the passage to think of the children of the spiritual children of Abraham as spiritual descendants of the patriarch as well. And they are obviously not his physical descendants being Gentiles.

Can we speak of a third category from Abraham forward, the category of covenant children? The idea is that we generalize the promise to Abraham in this way: it teaches that the children of believers are commanded the sign. This seems initially plausible and it practically ends all debates. However, the problem is that it dehistoricizes the promise that is given to Abraham, a believer to be sure, but it is not to all believers and their seed that this covenant is given (i.e. it was not given to Moses, Lot, Abraham's faithful servant, Ishmael, or Esau, etc.). This is a covenant given to Abraham and Sarah regarding the birth of Isaac and many descendants as the sand of the sea, and finally of Christ.

Back to the argument, the second premise is false. Or at the least it is unwarranted It cannot be held conclusively rendering the argument inconclusive.

3B. The promise argument ("redemption is promised to them")

The idea that they have redemption promised to them suggests a different line of argument with different emphases.

1) All who have the promise of redemption are entitled to the sign

2) All children of believers have the promise of redemption

3) So all children of believers are entitled to the sign

But we must define what it means to have the promise of redemption. Do they possess it subjectively in their hearts by faith? Do they have it as an offer that binds them?

Do they possess it subjectively in their hearts by faith? Infants do not per se have the promise subjectively (though of course they may be filled with the Spirit from the womb, as was John the Baptist).

It should be stated that the core tradition does not make this a guarantee that all the children of believing parents will be saved (though the language often slips in this direction). They speak of the fact that children may depart from the covenant community or "contract out."

Calvin speaks of God accepting our children into the fellowship of his church (Treatise, 51), which is one thing. But he uses stronger language in the Institutes (4.16.9; 4.17.32).

Do they have it as an offer that binds them?

If we stress the objective movement of the gospel to all people everywhere then all people everywhere are entitled to the sign. But this is false. The sign is not to be given to all families even though the gospel promise goes to all families (no one disputes the call of adults to faith as required for the sign).

Provisional evaluation

Therefore our provisional evaluation is this: the argument for infant baptism that emerges intuitively from the claims of the historic confessions is inconclusive. Granted, more needs to be said about this argument and the various forms it may take but this much seems evident, the argument (as reconstructed above) fails because it does not properly account for the change that obtains in the one covenant with Abraham when promise gives way to fulfillment. This weakness yields the apparently mistaken definition of the infant children of NT believers, that they are the children of Abraham by birth.

But given the fact of continuity we must look further at other matters like church membership (Hodge and Vos) and household solidarity.

4B. Consider Hodge's turning point argument (ST, III, 555). The argument is simply this:

Infants are members of the Church in OT (thus received the sign)

Church is one OT to NT

Infants are members of the Church in NT (thus receive the sign as accustomed)

Does his argument fit the initiatory sign argument in the rewritten version?

1) The children of Abraham are commanded the sign (Gen 17:9-12)

2) All children of NT believers are children of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)

3) So all children of NT believers are commanded the sign (necessary inference)

Is this really what is going on in the argument by Hodge? I think so and here is why.

First, for this argument to serve as a turning point it must bear directly on the relation of parents, children, and the initiatory sign. So if we ask what it means (relevant to this discussion) for infants to be members in the church in the OT, it means that they have the right to the sign as a birthright (556). How do we know this to be the case? We know it because the infant children of Abraham were commanded the sign in Genesis 17:9-12, which is premise one in the rewritten form of the initiatory sign argument.

Second, what does it mean to say that the Church is one in the OT and NT? It is a general statement that needs qualification because there are differences and changes that have occurred. There are differences of administration of the one covenant (the church is the temple of God but there is no temple administration; there are ordinances but no longer the multitude of Levitical ordinances, instead, we have two simple ordinances, etc.). So why not assume that there is also administrative change as to the subjects to whom the ordinances are administered, or at least, that such is possible? The answer to this for Hodge is found in "a principle to which they had always been accustomed" (556) which is the right to the sign as a "birthright" (556). Hodge applies this to Christian parents (because there is no exclusion given in the NT) and we have premise two above.

Hodge's basis for the 2^nd premise is that there is no exclusion of children from a birthright that was customary since Abraham. But this generalizes and dehistorizes the promise to Abraham. To carry this forward into the NT, the children of those who are Abraham's seed by faith must also be Abraham's seed. But this claim is the unwarranted and difficult claim to make.

His argument is that established custom of the birthright (by God's command) shows that the children of NT Gentile believers are entitled to the sign (unless there is clear NT exclusion of them from the sign). Why should this follow? Why would the birthright history lead to this entitlement? It is on the suppressed assumption that the children of NT Gentile believers must be the children of Abraham. This is premise two in our analysis above and it is subject to the same critique.

Perhaps these difficulties can be avoided when the argument shifts to church membership as done by J. Vos to whom we now turn.

5B. The Membership Argument of J. Vos

1C. Introduction

In a booklet titled, Baptism: Its Subjects and Modes, J. G. Vos makes the important claim that infant baptism is a corollary of the doctrines of the visible church and the covenant of grace (11; an implication of them, 10; "derived from them by inference" 11). The doctrine of the visible church is an implication of the doctrine of the covenant of grace (14). The covenant of grace is the implementation of the eternal covenant of grace (14). It is first announced in Genesis 3:15. From Adam to Abraham "this covenant relationship was continued in a specific family line, from father to son" (15). Abraham is "singled out as the progenitor of the nation of Israel…from which the human nature of Christ would come…The Covenant was formally established with Abraham, as recorded in Genesis chapter 17.

It should be noted that the Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed; that it concerned a visible body of people…and that covenant standing was marked by the rite or sacrament of circumcision" (15-16).

Vos cites Ephesians 2:11-13 as showing that the NT Church is "the commonwealth of Israel." He does this in a context where he establishes that when a Gentile becomes a Christian he becomes a true Israelite (the olive tree lives on, Romans 11:16-24; the olive tree refers to "the body of God's covenant people on earth"). "Thus Scripture teaches the unity and continuity of the New Testament Church with the Old Testament Israel. The form has changed, but the essence remains the same" (p. 17). What he has in mind is the continuation of the covenant relationship in "a specific family line, from father to son, through Seth, through the antediluvian patriarchs, through Noah and Shem, to Abraham….the Covenant was made with Abraham and with his seed; that it concerned a visible body of people – the clan or tribe of Abraham (Gen. 17:23); and that the covenant standing of this body of people was marked by the rite or sacrament of circumcision" and membership required the sign of circumcision (15-16); …"Throughout the patriarchal period the covenant people constituted a tribe or clan"…which was then "embodied in the nation of Israel" from the time of Moses to Christ (16; where there was apostasy, continuity was always continued in the remnant, 16).

2C. Three inferences

From these observations, Vos draws three inferences centered on the unity of the Covenant people.

1) "The Covenant is not a purely spiritual concept, but involves a visible body of people with an external organization and membership, including an external sign or token of membership in the body" (18). Thus both Israel and the Church are visible bodies by divine appointment and the visible church has great importance.

2) "The Covenant is confirmed to believers and their children after them. Now, as then, God's ordinary way of maintaining and increasing the body of His covenant people on earth is through the birth of children into covenant homes or families. The child born to an Israelite home had a covenant standing from birth. This could be despised and forfeited in later life, to be sure, but he had it from birth. If there is organic unity and continuity between Israel and the Church, then it is true that children born to Christian parents have a covenant standing from birth" (18-19, italics mine). This is in keeping with the family as the basic social unit (not the individual) thus children are born into "covenant standing and covenant obligations. Parents exercise faith and take vows for their children in a representative capacity" (19; introduction of the social unit brings up the household solidarity argument that we will discuss in the next section).

3) Thus as it was in Israel so it is in the visible church today: infants of believers ought to receive the sign (19). If they are members of the visible church then they are entitled to the sign (19).

3C. Counter-thrust on specifics

The first thing needed is that we specify on the theme of unity and clarify the argument.

What does he mean by a unity that implies that the children of Christian parents have a covenant standing from birth? For Vos, it must be the fact that when a Gentile becomes a Christian he becomes an Israelite in the true sense of the word (17, based on Eph. 2:11-13). This goes with the fact that the covenant relationship continues in a specific family line, from father to son (15), and it goes with the fact that the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, a visible body of people whose standing was marked by circumcision (15-16).

As I see it, this all boils down to saying that all the children of believers are children of Abraham and are therefore commanded the sign of the same covenant of old and new with merely a change in the ritual itself. Unless they are the children of Abraham how can they come under the command to Abraham and his children?

Thus, in the rewritten initiatory sign argument, Vos replaces Galatians 3 with Ephesians 2:11-13.

1) The children of Abraham are commanded the sign (Gen 17:9-12)

2) All children of believers are children of Abraham (Gal. 3; Vos: Eph. 2:11-13)

3) So all children of believers are commanded the sign (good and necessary inference)

The reason that children of believers are children of Abraham (though children are not mentioned in the text of Ephesians 2) is because believers are now true Israelites (now children of Abraham) and from that fact it is inferred that their children are also children of Abraham.

4C. Evaluation

Now we are in position to evaluate the argument.

Two critical comments are in order.

1) Vos does not escape the critical complaints already raised to this argument.

2) But we also have the further point that Vos fails to take in the whole context of Ephesians 2:11-3:13.

Paul's line of thought is not so much that Gentiles become true Israelites in contrast with being excluded from Israel as they were in pre-Christian times (2:12). The thought is that Gentiles are fellow citizens with the God's people and members of God's household (2:19), which is a temple dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit (2:21-22). The emphasis is on the fact Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body (the church, 3:10), and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus (3:6). Although not denying the statements of Paul in Galatians that believers are Abraham's seed, it is important to state that what Paul is doing in Ephesians is making the historical-redemptive claim that Israel and the nations are joined in one body, the church. This is not claiming that the Gentiles have become Israel but that Gentiles "together with Israel" (3:6; 2:12-16) are members of one body, the church (a third category, the new Israel, a spiritual Israel made up of Jews and Gentiles on equal footing).

This oversight by Vos seems important to understanding the discussion of infant baptism and evaluating it because the idea that "birth to a descendent of Abraham gives special covenant standing in contrast to birth from Gentile parentage" runs counter to the flow of Ephesians 2-3. It runs counter because matters of ancestry that once separated Gentiles by birth from citizenship in Israel (2:11-12) no longer pertain. (It does not apply at least to membership in God's household. Though other passages may indicate some abiding qualities to the family relation in other ways or in some more general "covenant" relation as in the offer of the gospel to the nations generation after generation of the specific embodiment in the Christian home sanctifying others).

Like Galatians 3, Ephesians 2-3 does not teach that being brought to the commonwealth of Israel or being the seed of Abraham means a birthright continues to the Gentiles of the NT.

We can now identify a distinction between these texts regarding being a "new Israel."

a) First, there is the point of being true seed by faith. Galatians accents that this means the Gentiles are of the faith of Abraham and have full justification (cf. Rom. 4:16-17, the promise and righteousness comes to all who share the faith of Abraham per the promise to Abraham regarding the nations).

b) Ephesians emphasizes that the spiritual reality of being Abraham's seed or the new Israel means that Jews and Gentiles are on the same footing as co-heirs in the church of Christ (without reference to, contrary to reference to, family heritage).

Again, the initiatory sign argument appears valid and compelling until we shift our thoughts from general considerations of unity to the specifics intended by the appeal to unity as those specifics come to the surface in specific passages. At first, everything looks good until we take careful note of the historical-redemptive change that has come to realization in the removal of distinctions based on birth that is part and parcel of the advance to national universalism from Jewish particularism.

A better way to state this is to ask and answer this question: how has the "you and yours" principle been changed in the NT advance from Jewish particularism to national universalism?

1) It now includes all children (it does not exclude the children of believers from the promise).

2) But this shift from Israel to the nations does not entail giving the sign of the covenant as a birthright (for this goes against the flow of Eph. 2-3 that indicates that family heritage drops from view).

Here then is the basis for a response to the "promise argument" for infant baptism. The argument from the historic confessions as noted above looks like this:

1) All who have the promise of redemption are entitled to the sign

2) All children of believers have the promise of redemption

3) So all children of believers are entitled to the sign

However, not all who have the covenant and the promises have title to the sign (as premise one claims). If that were the case then all people everywhere would have title to the sign. This is the case because the promise of the gospel (the gospel given to Abraham and now being fulfilled) now belongs to and binds all men everywhere. In this light some tentative ground can  be laid for approaching covenant status in an alternative direction and this will include a distinct model that reflects the shift from Israel to the nations.

5C. Covenant status that reflects the shift from Israel to the nations. The salvation of the nations and of the whole world is effected in the calling of a remnant made up of Jews and Gentiles. In the end, the world will be a redeemed world in glory. It will be a new man in the second Adam made up of people from all families of the earth.

How do we define covenant status in the context of this debate? It is not by a subjective quality of response to the gospel because that is not claimed for infant children. If we do not use birth either as a key to covenant status (because it goes against the flow of Ephesians that drops heritage from the picture), then how can we define covenant status in the NT? Ephesians 2-3 suggests that we incorporate the shift to the nations from the nation of Israel. Here we will accent the objective side of the equation or the offer of the gospel to the nations.

Israel was a covenant people objectively even though the covenant was not embraced subjectively by faith, as it ought to have been embraced. But it was embraced by faith by the chosen remnant (Paul builds on this OT fact in Rom. 11:1-5 to defend the present remnant).

Can we not now say that the nations are a community of nations under Christ as king and it is within that global context that He calls out His people? This would mean that the covenant people of the OT, the nation Israel, are replaced by the nations as the covenant people in a very broad sense in the new order. As in the OT, it could be said that to Israel belonged the promises and covenants, now it can be said that to the nations belong the promises and covenants. There was a dividing wall and "you were strangers to the covenants" in more than one way; broadly the covenant was not given to you but to Israel (Rom. 9, the covenants belonged to Israel; Eph. 2, you were strangers; this is historical-redemptive in distinction from soteriological).

As a model in the OT, we had Israel and Israel within Israel (the covenant people and the true people of God within the larger category). In the NT, the parallel would be the nations as the covenant people and the true, regenerate, covenant people within the nations (the invisible or true church). But where is the visible church in this model? The parallel from Israel to "Israel within" does not follow through point for point as it would if we went from Israel to the church and noted that both have the true people of God within them.

But the model has to be distinct if we think of the covenant people as the nations or the world as replacing Israel. Then, we have to say that the visible church is within the nations and the true church and true covenant people are within the nations (from all nations) and within the visible church. Fulfillment has brought an expansion and a complexity to realization.

The notion of the world or the nations as the new covenant community in this broad sense (not denying that the new covenant community is the visible church in a narrower sense) may seem somewhat radical at first glance. Is there biblical support for thinking this way? Support is given in the following passages. Bugs need to be worked out and specifics clarified and defended but here is a list and some brief comment.  1) Per Acts 2:39, the promise is to those afar off; the covenant goes to the Gentiles. Thus all men everywhere are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30). Thus, as we said earlier, the gospel of the covenant belongs to and binds all. 2) Per 1 Cor. 7:14, the unbeliever is sanctified and may be considered part of the covenant community in a very broad and general sense (this is difficult to define but remarkably the unbeliever is sanctified; why not take this to mean is part of the covenant in a way that contrasts with the time when the promises belonged as Paul says, to his kinsmen "according to the flesh," Rom. 9:3-4).

3) Matthew 13, in the wheat and weeds parable, the field that belongs to the owner is the world. It includes not just wheat and weeds within the visible church but wheat and weeds in the world since the separation pertains to all people at the harvest. Likewise, the kingdom is compared to a fish net that catches all kinds of fish (Matt. 13:47). It is not until the end of the age that the good fish (the righteous) will be separated from the bad fish (the wicked). This suggests a "gathering" now that embraces all nations in distinction from the gathered church because the separation is comprehensive. All the wicked will be separated from all the righteous at the harvest. Surely this is not just the wicked being separated from the righteous within the pale of the visible church.

We can compare this with some comments of Ridderbos (Coming of the Kingdom, 345) where he rejects the idea of a separation within the church in these parables. The model I am proposing is in line with his perspective on the kingdom as that which "denotes the consummation of all history" and "brings both grace and judgment, has cosmic dimensions, fills time and eternity. The ekklesia in all this is the people who in this great drama have been placed on the side of God in Christ by virtue of the divine election and covenant...the kingdom is revealed in the ekklesia..." (354-55). Gaffin's comment directs us along this line of thought as well: "absolutely nothing falls outside the eschatological rule of Christ" ("Some Epistemological Reflections," WTJ, Spring 1995, 106-107). Obviously, neither Ridderbos or Gaffin are pointing to the model suggested here that there is a sense in which the nations, all the nations, are in the position once occupied by the Israelite covenant people according to the flesh. As God was king over all Israelites though they were a particularly disobedient people, so now Christ is king over the entire earth though the human family is disobedient to the covenant that makes a claim on it.

4) The olive tree (Rom. 11:16-17) is historical-redemptive representing the shift from Israel to the nations as the covenant people (from which individual Jews or Gentiles may be broken off). Whatever may be said of individual salvation from this context, we must acknowledge something of a different order that has cosmic dimensions let alone global implications. 

5) That the Gentiles are called "my people" is historical-redemptive (Rom. 9:25). That is, Israel was spoken of by Hosea as being cut off from the Lord and merged as it were into the nations without distinction. Israel was thus, "not my people" meaning that she was indistinguishably blended with the nations. But the Lord said "those who were not my people I will call 'my people.'" This has to mean that a day is coming when God will call the nations "my people," which is just to say that the nations will have the place that Israel once had as God's covenant people. Paul's point is to place the call of Gentiles to salvation within this larger historical-redemptive context (which is in a word the universalism of the NT gospel promise).

6) The covenant people defined as those to whom the promise belongs is akin to the kingdom as the world that is owned by Christ. He has authority over all flesh, He is king over all flesh, to give eternal life to those given to him (Jn. 17:2). It is this authority over all that He cites to encourage us in taking the gospel to the nations (Matt. 28:19-20). In His kingdom there are both weeds and wheat (Contrary to expectation, what do the nations receive instead of judgment at the coming of the Lord to His temple? The nations receive the gospel first given by the Sower sowing seed, Matt. 13).

7) Note the broad reference to the Gentiles as a whole in Romans 15:16. Paul speaks of the Gentiles as a people. The Gentiles, the nations are now through Paul set apart as an offering pleasing to God. Without losing the call to individual faith, accent is placed on the fact that the once alienated people are gathered into the fish net of gospel proclamation that was uniquely cast by the apostolic ministry of Paul. This is a history of redemption oriented text that expresses the remarkable point that the Gentiles as a whole are now in the position once held by Israel exclusively: they are the people to whom the covenants, the patriarchs, and oracles of God belong (cf. Rom.15:8-12 w/ 9:4). They are in effect the new covenant people in this broad and general sense that the promise is to them that were far off (Acts 2:39). Thus by gospel proclamation to the Gentiles they are gathered into the fish net of the gospel of the kingdom. Now Christ's kingdom is not located in Jerusalem but across the entire world. By casting the net and opening the door of the gospel to the Gentiles Paul was instrumental in this historical-redemptive shift in the covenant people from Israel to the nations (with Israel included, this being the way that God is now fulfilling His covenant to Abraham and his posterity).

Being within this international kingdom does not mean that Gentiles are automatically justified. Justification of both Gentile and Jew alike is by faith in Christ alone. It would seem that both the history of redemption and personal salvation are in view (the Gentiles "…will understand," 15:21, and "all nations might believe and obey," 16:26). The salvation of the nations and of the whole world is effected in the calling of a remnant made up of Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are set apart as a whole in two ways: a) by the proclamation of the gospel fish net (cf. ESV, Rom. 16:26a), and b) by the call of some to the obedience of faith (cf. Rom. 16:26c; 1:5-6 with 2 Thess. 2:13-14).

If this is correct then the sanctifying work of the Spirit must apply to the work of Paul in two ways. One is historical-redemptive in which the apostle to the Gentiles brings the nations into an altogether new and permanent relationship to the kingdom of God. They are now a people to whom it can be said that the covenant promises belong to them and are thus proclaimed to them as good news that is received by faith in Christ. The other is soteriological. Through Paul the Holy Spirit separates and saves those who are called according to God's eternal purpose (even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles, Rom. 9:24). 

But does such historical-redemptive change apply to family solidarity? This is another dimension of the argument for infant baptism. It will be our next question to address.

6B. The Household Argument

1C. Introduction

According to Robert R. Booth, the doctrine of infant (or household) baptism is built on the unity of the covenant of grace and its various administrations (Children of the Promise, 66). "The children of believers were always included in the covenant of grace under the older covenant administrations" giving "established biblical pattern" so "apart from explicit biblical warrant to the contrary, the children of believers are still included in the covenant of grace. The grounds remain the same. There is no teaching in the Bible excluding the children of believers (or any others in the believer's household) from baptism. We are therefore obliged to maintain the long-standing practice of including believers' children in the covenant of grace" (10, italics mine). All male members of Abraham's house received the sign of the covenant even without personal faith (129, italics mine).

2C. The argument

If the OT and NT are a unit regarding the household principle, then the children of the believer's household in both are commanded the sign, OT and NT are a unit regarding the household principle, so, the children of the believer's household in both are commanded the sign.

3C. Clarification

Booth makes the claim that the household principle does not prove infant baptism (p. 121). Furthermore, the passages that give background support showing conditions that we would expect to be the case if infant baptism were actually practiced (or as Booth puts it, given that the case for infant baptism has already been demonstrated, p. 121).

However, it may be the case that these passages are not only not assets but also liabilities for the case for infant baptism because they reveal specific matters of discontinuity. These specifics bring into question the unqualified connection between believing parents, their children, and the sign. This can be shown in a number of examples.

4C. The place of servants in the household

We can substitute other household members in the place of infants in a parallel form of the argument. Servants bought from a foreigner, presumably adults, are circumcised on household authority without reference to profession of faith (Gen. 17: 25-26; Ex. 12:48-49, Booth, 129, with p. 10).

Without reference to faith, the adult servants of the believer's household are commanded the sign in the OT

OT and NT are a unit regarding the household principle

So, without reference to faith, the adult servants of the believer's household are commanded the sign in the NT

If we balk at this conclusion saying that the NT requires profession of faith of servants/employees, then something must be wrong with one of the premises. The second premise on unity is not precise enough and does not account for the fact of discontinuity in the household principle from OT to NT (for Kline this discontinuity is an open question, Oath, 98; he allows for it but does not see clear support. But would it not be as clear as the contextually associated children texts that call children to obey along with calling servants to obey?). This leads to the conclusion that the household principle is not only not an asset (not proof, Booth, p. 121) but it is a liability. How is this so? It reveals that the discontinuity emerging from OT to NT affects the covenant household precisely at the relationship of household authority to the subjects commanded to receive the sign. That relationship is altered in the NT as shown by the servants/employees example (also, cf. Jewett's insistence that the household principle regarding infant participation in the Passover is altered where communicant membership is upheld, Infant Baptism, 203). So we cannot conclusively infer infant inclusion in the sign based on household authority.

The second premise of Booth's household argument must be false regarding household authority and covenant sign administration. It is false if "unit" means that there is no discontinuity whatsoever that affects covenant administration and may affect the relation of infants as well. This critique of Booth can be made without denying the unity of the Bible and the progress of the covenant from OT to NT in other respects.

5C. The unbelieving spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:14

1D. The goose and gander problem occurs again. Neither Booth nor Murray claim deductive proof from this text. They claim some support however. But it seems that the tie between the unbelieving spouse and the child demands that if the passage supports infant baptism it also supports the baptism of the unbelieving spouse. Per household authority the unbeliever in the NT covenant family would be entitled to baptism (many unbelievers would not balk at receiving a religious sign given the tendency to false religious piety or simply domestic tranquility). The fact that this conclusion of the household argument is unacceptable indicates that the unity claim is false by imprecision and cannot be used in this general way regarding infants. It leaves the household argument for infant baptism inconclusive and problematic.

2D. Warfield's attempts harmonization. How does Warfield hint at the way this tie of the unbeliever and the child may be explained in a way that is "certainly" not inconsistent with infant baptism (Polemics, 398; contrary to Warfield the argument I am making claims inconsistency and thus liability). 

He says, "Of course, it is the sanctity or holiness of external connection and privilege that is referred to, both with reference to the children and the parent; but that of the one is taken for granted [the child], that of the other is argued [the parent]; hence it lies close to infer that the one may have had churchly recognition and the other not. Whether that was true or not, however, the passage cannot positively decide for us; it only raises a suspicion. But this suspicion ought to be frankly recognized" (p. 398).

I take Warfield to be saying that we have to allow for the possibility from this text that infants had churchly recognition (baptism) and the unbelieving spouse did not (this is one way to read him here, at least; perhaps more light is needed on what he intends). Thus both can be sanctified and only one baptized. This cuts the cord of the argument that including infants in the sign based on this text includes the unbelieving spouse as well.

My problem is not in granting that both can be sanctified and only one baptized; that is not in itself inconsistent.

My problem is arguing that the fact of the sanctification of the children supports infant baptism (as claimed by Booth and Murray) but that same fact does not support the problematic point of including the unbelieving spouse in the sign. By means of the "holiness" of the children the unbelieving spouse is shown to be "holy." Both must be granted this status. So, if having this status supports entitlement to baptism because of covenant family solidarity for one, it should also be taken as support for the baptism of the other. If this last thought is granted, then the argument from this text for infant baptism is to be faulted by reductio ad absurdum (by exposing the absurdity to which it leads or more mildly: by exposing the impossibility and unacceptability to which it leads). Namely, to prove infant inclusion in the new covenant sign from this passage is to prove the inclusion of unbelieving adults in the new covenant as well!

6C. The family under the sword in the NT

Jesus brought a sword (Matt. 10:34) that family members will use against one another making the members of a man's household his enemies (Matt. 10:35-36). Does this not indicate that the covenant family is radically altered in principle? This seems to be confirmed by the contextual shift to national universalism, which is brought out in two ways. First, the new covenant family is composed of those who love Christ more than father or mother (Matt. 10:37) and those who obey Christ are mother, sister and brother (Lk. 8:19-21). Second, this is a context that envisions the shift from the lost sheep of Israel exclusively (Matt. 10:5-6) to a condition that includes witness before the Gentiles (Matt. 10:18) and in the latter, the gospel will cut across family ties in a radical way (Matt. 10:21).

In general does this not mean that the household principle is different in the NT from the OT? In particular does it not suggest that ritual administration in the church (the new covenant community) is not a family matter governed by headship authority?

This leads to questions of the church, family and state in the shift from the OT to the NT. It seems that the household is not per se included in the new covenant community (per being a household with a believing member). On one hand, the household may be divided in some spiritual sense because of Christ and, on the other hand, there is the new or true household, those who believe and keep the words of Christ (his true brothers and sisters).

The point for this discussion is that this passage further supports the conclusion that one cannot simply reason from household solidarity to covenant status in general or to the covenant sign in particular. It teaches that the church, the household of the new covenant, is the household of faith. It teaches that a person becomes a member of the church/household by faith (by discipleship faith) and not by household standing (not by standing within a domestic household or "in virtue of their Christian descent," Bromiley, Children of Promise, 46). The reason is that Christ has made a change by bringing a sword that divides in the very process of forming the new household of faith.

Why is this not guilty of using a false external/internal model (as we objected to Kingdon and Jewett)? It is not arguing that the internalization of the new (household of faith) is the reason for the removal of the externalism (household standing by birth) in the old. It is identifying that internalism as a fact to be sure but the bare fact of this internalization could continue to exist with the external as was the case in the OT. What this is arguing is that household standing is changed from old to new by the sword of Christ (there is some definite change in the principle of family solidarity).

But this raises two questions that seem to blunt or nullify this posture. a) How then could household members be sanctified (1 Cor. 7:14) which seems to be due to their position in the household? b) Does this give us anything different than what already existed in the OT when Israel rebelled and came under God's judgment? Thus a remnant would parallel those Jesus spoke of as his true brothers and sisters and the enemies would be those of Israel who stand in rebellion under judgment. If this is the case then the general household principle is the same in OT and NT regarding the matters discussed in the sword passage. Therefore, we need to refine our thoughts in this connection.

It seems necessary to believe that domestic family members are not in the covenant family in one sense while they are in it in another. They are sanctified but they are not of the household of faith which at least would mean they are under the sound of the gospel in a special way (1 Cor 7:14) but they are not members of the household of faith though members of the domestic household (Matt. 10). They become members of the Christian household by faith without consideration of household status. The household structure of the past is divided by the sword of Christ.

But does Matthew 10 give us anything different than what already existed in the OT when Israel rebelled and came under God's judgment (with a sword dividing the family of Abraham)? Is there a difference between OT and NT here in which Israel was blessed in terms of the remnant? An answer can be found in the "not my people" passages of Hosea (cited by 1 Pet. 2:10, cf. Rom. 9:25-26; 10:19).

The remnant is not so much a division in the household of Abraham as it is the salvation of the household of Abraham. When Israel rebelled and came under judgment they were blended with the Gentiles having lost their covenant status as the chosen family from among the families of the earth. At that point they were submerged into the perishing Gentile families. Unless God preserved a seed (descendents), they would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah (totally annihilated-the entire household of Abraham removed from the face of the earth). But God did preserve a seed by saving the remnant in mercy according to His covenant.

Thus, to the present discussion, the household of Abraham is the covenant community and it is preserved as such through rebellion and judgment by the mercy and grace of God. And in the OT, Abraham's descendents made up the church (his domestic family was the church of the OT) in contrast to all other domestic families of the earth. It is at this very point that Jesus' words have striking significance. What He tells us is that by His coming there is a new order of things. In this new order there is no domestic household, like the household of Abraham, that makes up the church. Now the church is made up of all who believe (sisters, brothers, disciples, by faith; visibly identified by profession of faith). Implicit are two things. First, the sword alludes to the judgment on the house of Israel. Second, the context here refers to going to lost sheep of Israel first, after which a change will occur and the gospel will go to the nations, to all families of the earth who will make up the household of faith.

Therefore, the sword has a distinctive historical-redemptive aspect that pertains to the transition from Israel to the nations (though not limited to the transition time when judgment brought in the new order). Jesus is speaking of the fact that Israel will cease being the household of faith. Thus the point of emphasis is not so much a sword that will divide domestic households across the earth (though the gospel may and will do that). Instead, it is a sword that is leveled against the household of Abraham for disobedience. And this makes a change in the household from OT to NT relative to being the church. The Abrahamic household principle is altered. Abrahamic household solidarity in relation to being the church and having the sign of the covenant is altered in a radical way through a divine sword of judgment.

In summary, Jesus brought a sword (Matt. 10:34) that brings Israelite family members against one another making the members of a man's household his enemies (Matt. 10:35-36). This indicates that the covenant family is radically altered in principle. Confirmation is given by the contextual shift to national universalism, which is brought out in two ways. a) The new covenant family is composed of those who love Christ more than father or mother (Matt. 10:37) and those who obey Christ are mother, sister and brother (Lk. 8:19-21). b) This is a context that envisions the shift from the lost sheep of Israel exclusively (Matt. 10:5-6) to a condition that includes witness before the Gentiles (Matt. 10:18) and in the latter, the gospel will cut across the household of Abraham in a radical way (Matt. 10:21).

This is not a denial of the family unit or the obligations of family members under the fifth commandment (as Bromiley, 45, but unlike Bromiley, the sign is not tied to these things). Nor does this deny the promise of blessing to the generations of those who love God. But in general this means that the household principle is different in the NT from the OT. In particular it suggests that ritual administration in the church is not a family matter governed by headship authority as it was previously.

This change leads to questions of the church, family and state in the shift from the OT to the NT. In the OT, the church, family and state were all one. Now clearly the state and the church are separated (there is generally recognized discontinuity on this point in the NT). The sword passage indicates that the family, as domestic household per se, is separated from the church on the same principle that the state is separated from the church. That is, these were all one because one family from the nations was appointed to be both the church and state (Abraham's descendents became a nation set apart from the nations) and to this family-state-household was given the ordinances of the church to guide her worship.

Since a particular family is no longer the covenant people in distinction from the nations, then no particular family as such, as a family (you and your descendents), can now be identified as the church or the state (and marked as such by the covenant sign). When the family of Abraham was the church, the signs to be applied in the church were applied in the family and vice versa. When the family of Abraham is no longer the church just as the church is no longer the state then it reasonably follows that the administration of covenant/church signs is governed by principles of the church and not by principles of the family (such as birth or family solidarity).

One of the leading principles relevant to this discussion is that the means of entry into the church is by faith/baptism. We will discuss faith/baptism later as part of a positive treatment of believer baptism. Here we are simply showing by critique that issues such as the place of servants, the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse, and the sword of judgment on the household of Abraham indicate that household solidarity does not lead inescapably to infant baptism. Household solidarity is not carried through from the OT to the NT in such a straightforward way that we can infer infant baptism from it. Thus, the case for infant baptism that builds on inferences from household solidarity fails to attain conclusiveness. The kind of conclusiveness necessary to bring believing parents under a divine command is lacking. Thus this argument does not succeed: God's command to Abraham to circumcise his children is, via household solidarity in the unity of OT/NT, God's command to believers in the NT to baptize their infant children.

1A. Introduction: More is needed than a general unity claim

Rooting everything in Genesis 17, it is a stubborn fact that the children of Abraham commanded the sign are physical descendents. But here is the rub for this discussion: the infant children of new covenant believers are neither children of Abraham physically nor are they his children by faith. Granted, believing parents are Abraham's children by faith and thus they are the spiritual descendents of Abraham. But what can we infer from this fact regarding their children? Are we to infer that their children are physical descendents of Abraham to whom the promises belong? How can we take the command regarding the descendents of Abraham in Genesis 17 as a command regarding the descendents of Gentile believers?

Plainly, we cannot simply assume that the unity of the covenant with Abraham and his children conclusively necessitates that the infant children of believers are commanded the new covenant sign. More is needed than a general unity claim. We need to know that the unity pertains to the administration of the covenant sign. We need to know that circumcision and baptism are a unit regarding the administration of the sign. How can this be shown? A good place to start is Colossians 2 where circumcision and baptism are interfaced.

2A. Colossians 2 and the unity of circumcision and baptism

So let's consider what is needed to show not only that baptism and circumcision are interfaced but that baptism is a unity with circumcision precisely with respect to the administration of the sign to infants. Broadly speaking, there is no reference to infants in this passage and no reference to the subjects of baptism per se (we have to get to these things by inference).

What we have is some kind of convergence between circumcision and baptism. At the least, they have the same meaning: the putting off of the sinful nature (circumcision, v. 11) parallel with buried and raised with him (baptism, v. 12) to newness of life (cf. Rom. 6:4, a parallel text on baptism). This raising to life also involves forgiveness of sins (v. 13; cf. circumcision as a cleansing).

We can begin by affirming that they both point to the same thing or have the same ritual significance (though admittedly there is not exact identity).

From this basis, to infer regarding the subjects (not mentioned!) in the ritual must we not assume something to this effect: that if two rituals refer to the same thing or have the same meaning, then the subjects of the rituals must be the same?

But some questions surface.

a) Is this an acceptable assumption? Isn't it possible that two rituals could have the same meaning (at least overlap in significant ways) but for particular reasons have different subjects?

b) Can we agree that baptism and communion refer to the same thing (i.e., forgiveness is signified by baptism in Col. 2:13; forgiveness is signified by communion in Matt. 26:28)? But here is the rub; the subjects are not the same in each (unless one holds to infant communion along with infant baptism or to believer communion with believer baptism)? Is it therefore not better to view Colossians 2 as inconclusive regarding the subjects of baptism?

3A. The lesson about specificity

The lesson that surfaces again is that we cannot simply assume unity in general (of the OT and the NT; of the Abrahamic covenant, of family headship, and of circumcision with baptism) and then conclusively infer regarding the subjects of baptism. More is needed. It is extremely important to weigh the criticism that too much is assumed in the unity claim; that it is too general and fails by imprecision to make the case for infant baptism. We will discuss Colossians 2 later on more fully but now is the time to make a brief point on how Calvin treated the Great Commission.

III. Calvin on the Great Commission: Some Brief Comments

How does Calvin treat Matthew 28:19 contra the Anabaptists (Treatise, 45-46)? He states that instruction must precede the rite. But how is this to be done? A pagan needs to be instructed before his baptism (46). A man must be taught that he needs to convert to God with faith and repentance. Then Calvin cites how this was also the case for Abraham; he was instructed before circumcised. This is how a stranger to the church comes into the church. This opens the covenant argument: "when a man is received of God…the promise of salvation which is given to him is not for him alone but also for his children" (46, Gen. 17:7). Therefore, "at the same time his posterity is also made part of the family of the church. And for this reason infants of believers are baptized by virtue of this covenant" (47, italics mine). Thus "a man of age" must be taught before he is baptized. "But with respect to his children, they are baptized under the doctrine which he has received…that God is…the Savior of his children" (47). It is not required of them to understand before receiving the sacrament (47).

How strong is "Savior" intended (47)? In the old covenant, Abraham's infant seed were "my people" (I will be there God). So for Warfield, the key is "who belongs to the Lord." For us the key is to understand what this means to belong to the Lord in a) life of Abraham's infants (my people) and in b) in life of NT infants of believers (we must not forget the sober lesson of  Isaac/Ishmael and of Jacob/Esau that election is distinct from covenant and cuts across the covenant).

In the Institutes (4.16.27), how does he defeat the "order of words" argument? Calvin presents a reductio argument that shows that the Anabaptist argument would lead to the conclusion (per the order of words) that we could not teach an unbaptized six year old (or any unbaptized children) to obey father and mother!

We have to agree with Calvin and admire the use he makes here of the reductio ad absurdum argument. And we learn some things here that help us better understand what is going on in this debate. 1) It is very important to note the importance placed by Calvin on the need for instruction of strangers who come into the church by baptism. The reason that the infants of such a  stranger do not need instruction before their baptism is because when he comes to faith and into the church "his posterity is also made part of the family of the church." Opponents of infant baptism must appreciate this distinction. 2) Calvin's language in passages like these suggests the numerous problems that have surfaced historically regarding what it means for Christ to be the Savior of the children of believers. We have to somehow untangle the webs weaved in trying to explain the point of the sign applied to infants without going to extremes (like presumed regeneration, election of all the posterity of believers, etc.). But now it is fitting that we critically evaluate the tendency (in Kingdom and Jewett) to overstate discontinuity.