Skip to main content

Wright: an age which is not marked by ethnic boundaries but by regeneration and commitment to the Lord.

By


Calvin, Murray, and Marcel each use the material of the NT to “corroborate” what they previously argued about the nature of the sacraments and the covenant of grace. When they define baptism alone, they rely on the NT. But when they try to apply this biblical definition of baptism to the practice of baptizing infants, they are unconvincing since the NT gives us no warrant for paedobaptism. When they seek to justify infant baptism, they disregard the NT epistolary material that teaches specifically what baptism represents. This may be because none of these passages (e.g., Rom 6:3–4, 1 Pet 3:21) mentions infants; indeed, their exclusion of infants is almost explicit since infants cannot be said to have faith in Christ. Thus the covenantal reading of the Bible by Reformed paedobaptists results in an importing of OT constructs into the NT contrary to NT teaching. Their understanding of the new covenant is not new enough.[1]

…the appeal to Acts 2:38–39 fails to read Peter’s words in context. Reformed paedobaptists assume that “the promise” here means the promise of God’s blessing to those who are within the covenant community, including the children of believers, just as Abraham’s offspring were blessed by their relationship to him. But that is not what Peter means by “the promise” here. The promise is specifically the promised new age inaugurated by the Holy Spirit (2:33), an age which is not marked by ethnic boundaries but by regeneration and commitment to the Lord (2:17–20). It is a promise of forgiveness for all who call on the name of the Lord (2:21). 

Just as in their exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14 paedobaptists are not consistent in their application of the verse to unbelieving spouses, so also in Acts 2:39 they inconsistently apply the promise to believers’ children. But Peter does not. 

Rather, the promise is “for all who are far off” (leading to forced baptisms of everyone indiscriminately according to paedobaptist logic?), for “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Thus, the promise, with its accompanying sign of baptism (2:41), is for all who receive the gospel in faith and repentance. The promise is for those God calls who respond in faith. 

Christian parents should pray that their children would so respond. They should use all means available to help their children understand their obligation to obey the gospel (Acts 17:30), but the church must wait until the children respond in faith before giving them the sign of faith, baptism.[2]


[1] Schreiner, T. R., & Wright, S. D. (2006). Believer’s baptism: sign of the new covenant in Christ (p. 244). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.
[2] Schreiner, T. R., & Wright, S. D. (2006). Believer’s baptism: sign of the new covenant in Christ (pp. 245–246). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

By
  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Berkoff: "The law was not substituted for the promise; neither was faith supplanted by works. "

By
  The giving of the law did not effect a fundamental change in the religion of Israel, but merely introduced a change in its external form.  The law was not substituted for the promise; neither was faith supplanted by works.  Many of the Israelites, indeed, looked upon the law in a purely legalistic spirit and sought to base their claim to salvation on a scrupulous fulfillment of it as a body of external precepts.  But in the case of those who understood its real nature, who felt the inwardness and spirituality of the law, it served to deepen the sense of sin and to sharpen the conviction that salvation could be expected only from the grace of God . L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 498–499.
Post a Comment
Read more

F.F. Bruce: ...know their father's will...

By
The NT does not contain a detailed code of rules for the Christian. Codes of rules, as Paul explains elsewhere, are suited to the period of immaturity when the children of God are still under guardians; but children who have come to years of responsibility know their father’s will without having to be provided with a long list of “Do’s” and “Don’t’s.” What the NT does provide is those basic principles of Christian living which may be applied to varying situations of life as they arise. So, after answering the Corinthian Christians’ question about the eating of food that has been offered to idols, Paul sums up his advice in the words: “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Phrases current in worship, like “to the glory of God” or (as here) “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” were given a practical relevance by being applied to the concerns of ordinary life. Bruce, F. F. (1984). The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the...
Post a Comment
Read more