“Baptism is never empty; baptism is never a meaningless act. I deny that baptism operates ex opere operato for blessing, but I do affirm that it operates ex opere operato in formally ratifying the baptizand’s relationship to the covenant” (Against the Church, p. 161).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Doug,
It seems risky to baptize an infant lest he/she apostacizes, and he/she receives a harsher judgement than if he/she were not baptized. What SPRITUAL BENEFIT is received by one’s relationship to the covenant being formally ratified so early in life?
Drew
I’m still wondering about those promises conferred in baptism, and more specifically in light of this post, about how a baptized infant has a relationship to God. The relationship Peter suggests is that baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God,” something everybody instantly understands and heartily affirms when we’re baptizing an adult convert. But when that convert brings his newborn baby for baptism, I confess I lose sight of the connection between God and the infant who is being baptized. How does the infant have a good conscience toward God unless we argue for infant faith which,… Read more »
Marriage may or may not be a blessing but it does constitute a man and woman husband and wife. Childbirth may or may not be a blessing (Job and Jeremiah didn’t exactly celebrate their birthdays), but it does ordinarily put a child into a family: Sophie is a Lohr already, whether or not she end up a credit to us or we a blessing to her. Constantine went beyond Drew: he refused baptism before his deathbed, lest he sin. And since ignorance, tho not an excuse, can be a mitigation (servant who knew not his master’s will beaten with few… Read more »
Bro. Steve, Infant baptism does not rest on infant faith. To whatever degree God may work in infant hearts, it is not necessary to affirm that infants have the same faith we do, or have any knowledge approaching faith. I agree with you that no reasoning person has a saving relationship with God without faith. I’d also suggest, however, that every human being has a relationship with God, simply by existing in a God-created and sustained world. Many relate to God as unbelievers. Their children, from infancy, are in a discipleship program to relate to God that way. No sign… Read more »
I’m all for efficacious baptism. My beef here (horns and all) is that Pastor Wilson gets the Gospel, and has been a great blessing to me in that regard, but he does not get the New Covenant. Every Covenant has an objective obligation and a required response. The objective obligation of the Abrahamic Covenant fell upon Jesus, and He pleased the Father in giving the required response. In doing this, He didn’t just found the New Covenant, He became the New Covenant. With the Abrahamic Jew-Gentile distinction gone, an obligation to Him applies to everyone on the planet. The Good… Read more »
Hello Mike! I was wondering if you would comment. Thank you! After all this time, the implications of your covenant model still appear unclear to me. Do you belong to a church that “admits” members as heirs of salvation? In the New Covenant, is there still a visible boundary administered between those outside and those inside, as there was under the Old Covenant administration of salvation? I ask this because you say that the end of the Jew-Gentile distinction makes the New Covenant “obligation” apply to the whole world, and that all infants have the same covenant relation to God.… Read more »
Hi John Salvation hasn’t changed. Circumcision was about the “territory” of obligation to the Abrahamic Covenant. Within that territory, the goal was always the response of a circumcised heart. That’s what the Covenant Oath under Moses was about: the response. What has changed is that there is no longer a rite for the obligation, since all flesh is now obliged. Now there is rite for circumcision of heart, the response to the Gospel. Nathaniel was circumcised as a Jew according to the flesh, but baptised as a true Jew according to the heart. That’s what baptism is for. When this… Read more »
Mike Bull wrote: “The objective obligation of the Abrahamic Covenant fell upon Jesus, and He pleased the Father in giving the required response. In doing this, He didn’t just found the New Covenant, He became the New Covenant. With the Abrahamic Jew-Gentile distinction gone, an obligation to Him applies to everyone on the planet. The Good News is that the required response is simply faith in Jesus’ response to the Father.” Some view the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosiac Covenant as God’s deliberate covenant of works, imposed through legal hurdles. In the Old Covenant, if God had designed a system… Read more »
Mike Bull wrote: “So all children are Covenant children, all people are Covenant people, because they are obliged. If they are not, then we have no business preaching to them and calling them to join the Church.” Mike Bull rejects that baptism can be a sign of covenant union with Christ because Mike regards all infants (and all people) as Covenant people already. Conspicuously, Mike stops short of declaring everyone to be “covenant members” or to be “in covenant union with Christ”, but instead he uses phrases like “under the Covenant” or “obliged to the Covenant”. Oddly, Mike imagines a… Read more »
Katecho,
I appreciate your responses. Even on your understanding, isn’t it true that Christ is the predestinated workaround for Adam’s failure to persevere. Although eternal life may not require a certain “amount” of obedience/righteousness, it does require maintaining a holy, righteous character in obedience. As the second Adam, Christ succeeded; otherwise he would also be condemned, and we could not have forgiveness and righteousness in him.
john k wrote: “Even on your understanding, isn’t it true that Christ is the predestinated workaround for Adam’s failure to persevere. Although eternal life may not require a certain “amount” of obedience/righteousness, it does require maintaining a holy, righteous character in obedience.” Adam and Eve betrayed God’s blessing and grace already showered upon them, they didn’t fail to earn God’s blessing. So Christ shouldn’t be seen as earning something Adam failed to earn. Some might attempt to argue that persevering, or abiding, or remaining loyal, is itself a work, or somehow meritorious, obliging God to compensate us. One problem with… Read more »
Katecho, I get the argument against merit. I did not use merit in my previous comment. I asked about perseverance. And not meritorious perseverance–just perseverance in what God had already given. Christ is the Second Adam–he did something the first Adam failed at. I’m saying it was perseverance under testing. Is that idea unacceptable? Furthermore, does it matter, or do you reject federal headship (the notion that we come to be represented by one Adam or the other, and receive condemnation or justification, among other things, with our head). If Adam had persevered, it would have been glory to God.… Read more »
Katecho, you’ve misunderstood my arguments once again. The obligation of the Abrahamic Covenant was the Mosaic Law. You are correct concerning merit, and I agree with you on that one. But the blessings to Abraham were tied to the curses of Moses until Christ. I agree with most of what you’ve written, but you are the one making the same error as the first century Judaizers. “Mike Bull rejects that baptism can be a sign of covenant union with Christ because Mike regards all infants (and all people) as Covenant people already. Conspicuously, Mike stops short of declaring everyone to… Read more »