Contents
Presupp and Preteristic Sophistry?
Interesting argument; but maybe a bit sophist?
I’m not a full preterist because of passages like you use to make a standard argument against preterism under the solipsism heading (which, BTW, seemed a little off argument).
So, I have no dog in this fight.
The essence of your argument seems to be that a presup must grant some authority to synods and creeds in order to have something to presup with. You argue also that this authority is challengable, which you do yourself at 2Nicea, which seems to imply that the authority of synods and creeds decays with temporal distance from the birth of the Church. But, if we agree that this authority is challengable and decays, why not a decay that’s issue-based instead of time-based.
As a presup, I grant that synods and creeds (S&Cs) were granted at least enough authority to determine the canon. All other issues are subject to review. So, analogous with your challenge of 2Nicea over the 2nd commandment, the preterist grants the S&Cs its authority to determine the canon but challenges it at the point it denies full preterist, rejecting this determination for the same reason that you reject 2Nicea: because (at least to the preterist) this determination violates the “clear” teaching of Scripture.
There’s a whiff of circularity in the argument; but when has good presup ever been scandalized by a little circularity?Allen
Allen, I don’t think this critique works for a couple of reasons. First, I don’t think it requires centuries to err. The apostle Paul was preparing himself for the Jerusalem Council to err. And secondly, the people who gave the full preterist presupp his canon were also people who affirmed the future coming of Christ.
In “Presupp and Preterism,” have you not conflated infallibility with inerrancy?Robert
Robert, yes, but somewhat deliberately, given the history of the words, And I was trying to be careful to maintain certain important distinctions—e.g. capable of error does not mean erroneous. If that post gets worked into a book at some point, I will try to provide more definition.
FWIW, an illustration of how church relates to Scripture. When the crazy millionaire Howard Hughes died, a dozen or so documents popped up each claimed to be his Last Will and Testament. Now it was not the business of the courts (the Church) to write a new document and declare their writing Hughes’ Will. It was the duty of the courts to sort thru the claimants and see if any was, in fact, Hughes’ will. Similarly it is not the duty of the church to write Scripture and say “We’ve written Scripture.” It’s the duty of the church to acknowledge what writings are Scripture and which are not.
(Couple points we might agree less on. When the church acknowledges “This is canon,” it might also have to say, And this is prophecy, but not Canon–if anything from Philip’s daughters was available, for instance. Or Hermas. Since the Bible acknowledges the existence of non-canonical prophecies.)
(And not to argue, just to ask your position if you care to set it forth: parts of the church call the Apocrypha canon [while excluding some old writings; I don’t think any Bible includes 2nd Enoch as canon]. Maybe you’ve already set forth why you think it’s not?)Andrew
Andrew, your first illustration of Hughes’ will is a good one. As for the Apocrypha, the Jews of the Dispersion included it, while the Jews in Israel did not. Their book order was different, but the Jews in Palestine had the same books as the Protestant OT. Jesus alludes to this when he says “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”—Genesis to 2 Chronicles, which was their last book. It was like us saying from Genesis to Revelation.
My typical experience with anything written on Sola Scriptura makes me feel as if I’ve gone back to my high school cafeteria, took a seat at the old table where I ate lunch, and listened to my friends say that same stupid nonsense they said back in 1979. If I hear another Catholic say “what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible church?” it will be the death of my liver.
Your article did a good job with the topic, although one point you might have added is that Sola Scriptura is meant as an explanation of present circumstances and is not meant to apply at every time in history. When Jesus was preaching the Sermon on the Mount, there was infallible information about God outside of Scripture.
In case it’s not obvious, I’m referring to this article.Greg
Greg, thanks.
Re: presup and preterism
Last week creation.com published an article
“World’s oldest hymn rediscovered”
In it is this line:
“As we sing our hymn
To the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
Now we know the Trinity was revealed in Scripture when the Son was in the river and the Father’s audible voice spoke and the Spirit descended upon the Son in the form of a dove.
Neither does the Bible leave any wiggle room for the deity of Christ.
However it is like a glass of cold water on a hot day to learn that almost a century before Nicea the Trinity was expressed in a hymn and Akeptous’s mosaic spoke of the deity of Jesus. People got it all along for God knows how to reveal things to the fallen.Murk
Murk, thank you.
Video Response to Russell Moore
The intro montage at the beginning of the “They’re Losers” episode of Doug Wilson and Friends is 10/10 and I laugh out loud with joy each time I watch it. To your video editors: please keep doing what you’re doing. To anyone who hasn’t gotten a Canon+ subscription yet but is considering it: you will have only one regret, which will be, “Why didn’t I subscribe sooner?”
Thankful beyond measure,Laura
Laura, thanks so much.
Re: your video response to the CT smear. I noticed the “Christ Is Lord” signs all over the place and it reminded me of a question I had when that project first came out. Why didn’t you use “Jesus is Lord” (I Corinthians 12:3)? Just curious …David
David, I wasn’t in the room when that decision was made, but I think Christ is Lord hits harder rhetorically. It is punchier.
Larry Arnn and Hillsdale
Hello, Douglas. I will preface this by saying that I disagree with just about everything you’ve put out on a sociopolitical basis. However, I can’t help but be intrigued by your work and obvious success. In a world that’s so commonly complacent with injustice and worsening conditions, it is up to the most outspoken to change it.
Now, I went through the effort of reading your article ‘Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step’ and I’m intrigued to delve further into your idea of states as ‘moral agents.’ My question to you is how do you expect Christian nationalism to take on the gauntlet of the Internet?
Suppose Christian nationalism takes hold in America. You can amend the truth of the Bible into the Constitution and whatever else, that still leaves the rest of the world. A world that is rapidly developing if nothing else economically outside of the sphere of the American sphere of influence (Take China, India or BRICS in general for that matter, none of which are Christian-majority).
The Internet obviously serves as the global forum whereas anybody with a capable device and a connection can participate. Now, as a Christian nation, you can most definitely legislate away immoral content, you can invest funds in promoting your own viewpoints but that doesn’t ultimately change what the rest of the world puts out on the Internet which could damage the spiritual/theocratic basis of your society. In short, my point is that you can make an effective morality shield for your own nation but when dealing with problems of the magnitude and speed of the Internet, its impossible to build a sword to swing at other nations.
So my final question to you is if any one nation can’t be an effective moral agent against the Internet, how do you plan to topple that? Do you believe that the rest of the world can be convinced on reason or moral appeal alone? Do you believe that the theoretical Christian American model will become something for other nations to emulate via economic strength or otherwise?
I appreciate it if you’ve read this far. I’m not looking to debate or get some sly ‘gotcha’ for a blog, more I’m trying to understand how people who see the world in a completely different light to me would deal with the same global problems.
Take care,Samuel.
Samuel, thanks for a great question. That would in fact be a thorny problem. And the answer would be . . . tariffs! Joking. Mostly.
Re: Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step
“What we don’t like to do is cooperate whenever somebody starts to exhibit the implications. Hence our difficulties.”
I think you are really onto the crux of the thing here, and I think it’s true in both directions. For those of us who have misgivings about Christian Nationalism, the implications are a crucial part of it. For many, it may even involve implications that we haven’t given conscious consideration to.
Unlike the early church and the authors of the books of the New Testament, we live under a representative system of government. We have a degree of agency. The preamble to our Constitution claims that it is we, the people, who establish justice, promote general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, etc. Christians, as a very large subset of We the People, are included in this constitutional responsibility.
However, it seems that to be a Christian Nationalist means to also believe that the Church has these same duties (and more), but in such a way that precedes and supersedes any charge given by founding documents. The Church has its own duty to establish justice and promote general welfare. Those duties come not from any purely man-made document, but they come directly from the Lord himself, in the form of “make disciples of all nations”. And this commission from the Lord must, naturally, override any other prescription from any other governing authority.
From this perspective, the Church has a duty to deter and criminalize evil, such as abortion for one example. We are to do this via the state. The mission is the Church’s, and the state is merely the instrument for getting it done.
With all of the preceding in view, the question for me becomes, what happens if We the People become, by majority, an entity in direct opposition to the Church? Would we not then have a duty to—by force if necessary—dismantle our representative form of government? After all, we have no reason to believe that the U.S. form of government has a special sanction from God and that all other forms of government are prohibited from the American people. So if we come to a point where democratic processes are leading us further and further away from justice and the ways of the Lord, why would we not consider ourselves duty-bound to institute a different form of government?
Christian Nationalism then is, by definition, at odds with representative government. It values it not as an inherent good, but only as a means of establishing other goods, and only for as long as it is effective for that purpose. Christian Nationalism implies, whether its adherents recognize it or not, that revolution, maybe even violent revolution if necessary, is always on the table.
Of course, precisely how amenable a Christian should be to possibly violent revolution is another topic that I won’t add to this already lengthy response. But I guess the main thing I’m wondering for now is if you agree that this could be a big part of the reason that many Christians have an intuitive aversion to Christian Nationalism?Kenneth
Kenneth, I do think that is a reason why many Christians are nervous about it, but I believe the nervousness is misplaced. The Church’s weapons are not carnal, so in the scenario you describe, our task should be evangelism and teaching.
Re: Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step
Can a nation be said to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ without any individuals doing so? If no one in a country believed, would not the wrath of God remain on every person in that country, no matter what the government did and the people approved? Since the answers are No to the first question and Yes to the second, our task is to preach the gospel and fulfill the Great Commission, so what we want to call “our”project is not Christian nationalism but . . . preaching the gospel and fulfilling the Great Commission. Same as we have always called it.
Christian Nationalism is not really what you promise it simply is, or there simply is no need for the term. Maybe marketing is the problem. Or maybe it is planning.John
John, you can collect eggs but never get around to making the omelet. But in order to make an omelet, you need to have the eggs.
19th Amendment
Re: the restoration of the American household
I’m on board with the repeal of the 19th Amendment, though I suggest it is only a small step toward the restoration of the American household. Much more needs to be done. But before we get to that some other day, I’d love to know some specifics on how Christ Church handles congregational voting by household. Let’s say a young man and a young woman come to Moscow from other states to attend NSA. And by some miraculous occurrence, both graduate without getting married or finding their soon-to-be future spouse. And both decide to stay on in Moscow in pursuit of God’s will for their lives—including marriage. As they attend Christ Church as singles, do each of them get to vote as the head of their single member households? Also wondering how you might apply Gen. 2:24 (a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh) to this situation). Thank you.Bill
Bill, I agree the 19th Amendment is a small step . . . and probably one of the last steps. As to your questions about our church polity, when unmarried individuals are self-supporting (i.e. parents are no putting them through college anymore), we treat them as a household of one.
Revelation Helps
I was wondering if I could have a list of authors/commentaries that Pastor Douglas Wilson used on his commentary about the book of Revelation?Johnathon
Johnathon. I would list a couple of categories. First would be the books I used in working through the whole subject of eschatology—Gentry’s He Shall Have Dominion, Mathison’s Postmillennialism, Rushdoony’s Thy Kingdom Come. There were scads of those. The second category was Steve Gregg’s marvelous commentary, Revelation: Four Views. Passage by passage, he puts commentary from the four main interpretive schools in four columns, side by side.
An Old Tragedy
I have a question I hope you can provide clarity on. Four years ago, at 14 years of marriage, I engaged in an extramarital affair. I’d been seeing a Christian therapist on and off for 9 years, trying to become the husband my wife thought I should be. I’d allowed myself to be a people-pleaser, allowing myself to be emasculated, disrespected, and to quote my ex-wife “the third child” in our home. The adultery is absolutely wrong and I knew that, and have since repented of it. But I was so angry and hurt I chose to file for divorce. I see that it is the worst thing I could have done and it’s been worse than I imagined.
At this point, I’ve asked my ex-wife about reconciliation four times to which she’s replied, “I don’t want to say never, but it would take years before I even consider that,” and “it will take years of consistency before we even have that conversation.”
Since then, I’ve met someone and we’ve been dating 3 years (she has never been married). We at one point moved in together but have since moved back out, recognizing this is not something God can and would bless. I’ve been reading your Family Series books and want to be the “Federal Husband” in a reformed marriage. But my ex-wife does not have much of any interest in reconciling. Meanwhile, I want to be the husband God has called me to be, if not for her than with someone. I don’t want to abuse God’s grace by, as the apostle Paul would phrase, “sinning more so God’s Grace can abound all the more.”
What are my options moving forward? Thank you.Aaron
Aaron, I would recommend you go to your pastor and outline for him what you have said here. Ask your pastor to talk to your ex-wife and get her account (Prov. 18:17). At which time, you would ask your pastor for a formal letter from the church, defining your status for you. Your ex-wife was the wronged party, but it is not right to keep you in limbo. Either reconcile or don’t.
Thanking God for the Affliction
Thanks very much for your ministry and challenging us take God at His Word and let what He says inform how we live, including how we respond to suffering. I think a lot of people understand the concept of giving thanks IN all circumstances, but the concept of giving thanks FOR all circumstances is a bit different. Could you provide some clear examples in the Bible, whether from the Psalms, or prayers of believers in the Bible, where the faithful are specifically thanking God for the evil or difficult thing that has befallen them? It seems to me, if there aren’t some really clear examples of that, we might do better to interpret Eph 5:20 as meaning we ought to give thanks to God for all things that it is fitting to give thanks to Him for. It seems a believer could hold fast to God’s sovereign rule over all circumstances, receiving even the hard providences as from the loving hand of their Father, while also having a category for not thanking Him for the evil itself he permitted to befall them, but rather thanking Him for His promises, His goodness, etc. in the whole thing. Just to put a sharp point on it, where the rubber might meet the road. It would be hard for me to imagine as a pastor the following scenario: a woman has been raped or a child has been molested, and they come seeking counsel from me. Would I be instructing them, along with the proper sympathy, laments, and reminders of God’s promises, to spend some time thanking God for the rape/molesting?Nick
Nick, the best example I can think of comes from the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord said “this is my body which is broken for you,” and then He gave thanks. We call it the Eucharist for a reason.
Cromwell Was a Good Guy
So here is a question way out of left field, apropos of nothing recently discussed. I have a good friend who is now a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church, at which I attended prior to my current membership in a PCA church. They have a “Society of King Charles the Martyr” and celebrate King Charles. I, on the other hand, have long considered Oliver Cromwell to have been the more godly in his efforts to counter King Charles’ traitorous efforts to drag England back to Rome. Alas, most of my opinions were built on offhand comments in books and blogs posts (and on the 1970 movie “Cromwell,” starring Richard Harris and Alec Guinness, Hollywood being a celebrated source of accurate history). Do you know of any books or information sources where I may get a balanced and accurate depiction of what actually went on back then?David
David, I enjoyed this book by Merle d’Aubigne. And for some of the other slanders that are thrown at Cromwell, this was a lot of fun.
Baptism and LIberalism
“Christianity & Liberalism (& Rebaptism)”
I have long followed your blog, and I have appreciated your commentary on a number of theological and cultural topics. Even though we belong to somewhat different denominational alignments, your insightful thoughtful engagement has challenged and shaped my understanding and beliefs in several realms.
Though I remain convictionally credobaptist, I have been greatly convicted and encouraged by the confessional standards of the CREC and the scriptural teaching on “one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-6) that would seem to cut against the prevalent practice of rebaptism in my own circles. While Scriptures such as Acts 19:1-7 (in the Ephesians encounter with John’s disciples) suggest there may be some permissible occasions for such action, I suspect it should be far less common than it currently is.
Your exchange last week with Mr. Mike (in “A Liberal Set of Questions”) made me wonder how these principles might apply to converts/congregants from certain branches of liberal Protestantism. In his seminal work, Machen seemed convinced that liberal theology was ultimately a different religion than historic Christianity, because of the radically different dictionaries at play and the deviation from fundamental doctrines. If someone was to come into the CREC (or other evangelical churches) from various rainbow denominations (such as the UCC or the ELCA) that verbally affirm the same creeds and scriptural canon but come to drastically different operating principles or open organizational commitments to affirming theology or other apparent evidences of a divinely removed lampstand (Rev. 2:5), would you permit or encourage such folks to pursue rebaptism? Or is such an action reserved only for those cults and sects that abandon and neglect Trinitarianism in their official doctrine and/or baptismal rites?a musing Midwesterner
AMM, to date, we would continue to receive their baptisms. That would stop when they formally abandoned or repudiated their creedal foundation. They are grievously sinning, but the efficacy of baptism is not erased by that.
A Stealth Baptism
This does not pertain to anything I’ve seen you write about recently, but . . .
I have a friend who is about to have his first child. My friend was raised CRC, and believes in the virtue of infant baptism, however . . .
He currently is a member of an admittedly solid Alliance church, which does not support infant baptism.
Now for the question:
If my friend does ardently believe that infant baptism is what God desires, and he also believes that the church he is in is the best fit for his family, can he take his child to be baptized in a Lutheran or Catholic Church, and then resume attendance at the Alliance church?
I understand the church at-large has discerned that it doesn’t matter who you are baptized by, but rather who you are baptized into.
Is it okay to make this tactical move? If we confess a universal church, what would be wrong with it?
Very curious to read your thoughts, thanksWilliam
William, something like that could be okay, if the respective churches were in on board with it. But I have a problem with doing it on the sly. The problem I see is that the Alliance church would likely not receive the baptism, and would require an additional baptism before the child could come to the Table.
Christian Nationalism
This is a comment on the “Demonisising for Fun and Profi” post. I’m interested in taking a look into Christian Nationalism, specifically the biblical basis for it. What free resources would you recommend for it?VK
VK, probably the quickest (and most free) was to get up to speed, would be to use the search bar on this blog, and look at the posts under the tag of Mere Christendom.
Soft Theonomy
Do you think you could possibly write an article addressing non-legislative theonomy? I’m asking because one of its main adherents just wrote an article criticizing your in-his-view vague stance on biblical law.
Thank you,Samuel
Samuel, that would be a good project. I should think about it.
Is Itinerant Preaching Biblical?
Here’s a definition of an itinerant preacher/traveling evangelist: “An itinerant preacher is a religious minister, typically Christian, who travels from place to place to deliver sermons and spread religious teachings, rather than remaining in a single location. These traveling preachers, also called evangelists or circuit riders, focus on sharing their faith with diverse audiences in various communities within a relatively short timeframe.”
Of course the immediate response from many is that Paul the Apostle fits this description. But, I tend to conclude that what he did was actually quite different. I’m not so sure there is a Biblical precedent for the kind of itinerant preaching we see today.
Paul of course traveled, but I think that’s where the similarity may end. For one, Paul traveled to check on churches he had started or oversaw. He was deeply involved with these churches, writing them letters, etc. And when he traveled to visit them, he didn’t preach for 3 days and leave. He lived there for YEARS. He knew the people at these churches, and was known by them. One further note is that Paul was not married.
The itinerant preacher I see today travels a lot. But they aren’t establishing churches, and when they visit a church it’s for a very short period of time. He’s also able to have somewhat of a “celebrity status” because he doesn’t stay at these churches long enough to be truly known by them. In fact, these churches really have no way of knowing if he’s truly qualified. An itinerant preacher is also often absent from his local church, due to traveling so much. And on top of all that, many itinerant preachers are married with children still at home, that they leave for weeks at a time throughout the year.
(Of course I’m not thinking of people who occasionally travel to speak somewhere. I’m thinking of people whose whole life is traveling and preaching).
I imagine my son someday, telling me that he wants to be an itinerant preacher. In my head right now, I’m leaning towards thinking that just shouldn’t even be an option. Instead I see the options being 1. Being the pastor of a local church who has chosen you because they know you and your family and know you are qualified. You get to dedicate your life to shepherding a particular flock of people, flaws and all. You don’t get to simply preach and leave. And your family is with you most of the time, because your life’s work is not constant traveling. And then option 2. Being a missionary to another country, which involves moving your whole family and life to a new location, and then staying there for at least a long time. Establishing a local church, etc. Pretty much the same as option 1, except it’s in another country.
Correct me if you see it differently, but itinerant preaching seems to include the positives of ministry, but without the heavy responsibility that is supposed to come with it. It involves travel, and preaching, but doesn’t include the dirty work of having to truly tend dirty sheep. And the nature of it seems to lead to the neglect of a man’s first responsibility, to his wife and children, because of being away so much. It appears that the married Apostles, like Peter, stayed in Jerusalem. That’s not to say he never traveled anywhere. But, I don’t think there’s any reason to think he did what Paul did.SA
SA, I share your suspicions about much of itinerant ministry. Do did the Didache, which laid down rules for telling which visiting preachers were frauds. But that indicates there were itinerant ministers very early on. And when Christ sent out the 70, that was a form of itinerant ministry. So put me down as a very qualified supporter.
The Shroud of Turin
Recently Tucker Carlson did an interview discussing the shroud of Turin. My dad recommended I watch it and we both think it is very interesting to say the least. From what I understand you are skeptical about the authenticity of the shroud. Are you skeptical about the shroud being Jesus’ shroud at all, or just the image found on it? We would love to hear your thoughts on the interview.Hannah
Hannah, I sent Tucker a copy of this article, written by my son, which Tucker thought was zesty. I agree.
Contraband for the Brain
I’m not writing this letter in response to any particular post. Instead, this is more of a nod to some of your statements about the Civil War, MLK, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. Allie Beth Stuckey interviews Chad O. Jackson in this episode and there’s plenty of contraband thought (to reference something you said about a book during the Covid craze). Nothing Chad O. Jackson says causes any consternation on my part, yet it does cause me to sit back and marvel over how effective propaganda is regardless of who wields it. Here’s the link for your edification:Matthew
Matthew, thanks. Yes, nature is healing.
The Shroud of Turin is such a fantastically complicated question that unless a person has done hundreds of hours of research on it, I think it’s best to leave it alone.
I find it to be a very simple question.
The hair is too long. Jews had short hair, with those who had taken a Nazarite vow being an exception, shown by their hair growing long.
Yes, that crossed my mind. Maybe there was a separate head cloth under the larger cloth? Also did they not have time to clean the blood off? I know they were in a hurry but still…
Or a simpler answer… the artist who said he made it actually did using a technique that can be used to create a replica nowadays. (Stretch linen on ground, cover with sheet of glass, paint image of person on glass, wait for sun to fade the rest of the cloth)
On infant baptism (which I argue is contrary to the Word of God), I’d be happy to interact with anyone who has the time to interact with a piece I recently wrote: https://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/a-question-for-baptists-answered/. If you want somewhere to directly interact, you can do so here: https://mothwo.blogspot.com/2025/08/why-is-there-no-controversy-in-new.html
Sure, what about genesis 17:7
Places in the New Testament which teach us how to interpret such verses is discussed at length in the essay.
The verse I quoted refers to his offspring’s offspring. If we are the offspring of Abraham then who is our offspring
“And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”
“In their generations” Towldah meaning descent, family, or birth.
Yes, Abraham’s descendants to however many generations.
No, Abraham’s seed’s descendants
“you” = Abraham “your descendants after you” = those linearly descended from Abraham (subsequently clarified to be only the line through Jacob) “to you” = to Abraham “to your descendants after you” = those linearly descended from Abraham Under the Old Covenant, the male descendants (through Jacob) are circumcised. Under the New, those who share the faith of Abraham are baptised. That’s actually perfect continuity and fulfillment once you understand that God foreshadowed the spiritual seed under the image of a physical seed. “Believers and one generation of offspring” is “neither fish nor fowl” – it confuses the two together.… Read more »
Either it is our generations, the old covenant still works, or God lied about it being eternal. He says you(Abraham), your descendants(Us), and their descendants/family(our kids). Now whether you can infant baptize a Christian’s grandchild if the kids parents are apostate may very well be justified, however the parents would never allow it. the objections are to rejecting Jesus and attempting to remain under the old covenant, relying on blood to save you apart from faith. We baptize knowing full well they need faith and praying that they would never know a day apart from Jesus. We baptize them because… Read more »
> “or God lied about it being eternal” What an appalling thing to say. The meaning of God’s covenant promise is understood by studying its actual outworking in the Messiah and the New Covenant. On the logic of the claim you’ve just made, God must actually have promised *universal infant salvation* for Christian parents, not simply some “outer-ring” membership that entitles them to the ordinance of baptism. > “however the parents would never allow it.” A claim falsified by the actual history of baptismal debate (e.g. the half-way covenant). How do you manage to leap from David’s statement that the… Read more »
what David said was he shall go to the child in the future, in other words either David went to hell or the baby went to heaven. I would argue that their is infant salvation for the children of at least one Christian parent as we are told that they are holy.
I would argue that their is infant salvation for the children of at least one Christian parent as we are told that they are holy. I don’t agree with you on this one!! Children being holy is found in the context of a discussion of marriage and divorce, not Christian initiation. In a mixed marriage … the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. The sanctified status of the believer is carried over to the unbeliever. The result for any children of the marriage is Otherwise, your children would be unclean,… Read more »
Explicit statements is the same logic as the Unitarians use. That doesn’t mean that there is no Trinity, it just means they are ignoring all the Trinitarian arguments and verses. Clear and explicit- Our children are holy (1 Cor 7:14)
You’re confusing something there. The Bible makes all the explicit statements that comprise the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God; they are distinct from eachother; there is only one God. Unitarians aren’t Unitarians because the Trinity is a “between the lines, somewhere, if you do the progression of Biblical theology rightly between the covenants” doctrine; they’re Unitarians because they refuse to accept the explicit Scriptural witness to the deity of Christ. In what way are your children holy? In the Old Testament, the temple was holy, the ground at the… Read more »
Also Acts 2:39 says that the promise is to you and your children. Colossians 2:11 speaks of circumcision being linked to baptism and rather than the sign being restricted to less people it is expanded to include more. Circumcision was only for Jews and for males. Baptism is for Jews and Gentiles, Male and Female, slave and free. If the NT nowhere directly says it is not for covenantal children than why should we restrict them. Just because the covenant now includes more people does not mean it must exclude others. The argument from silence is this, why were there… Read more »
I respond to a specific argument for paedobaptism; it’d be more useful to carry on that discussion rather than bring in a different set of arguments instead of the one I was examining, but no matter… Acts 2:39 is routinely quoted by paedobaptists cutting part of the verse off. “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Who are those who are “afar off”, and what “call” is here in mind? 2 verses later tells us that “Then those who gladly received… Read more »
you want a specific example of household baptism, try acts 16. While it does not say that there were infants it does illustrate the principle. Also Augustine references paeobaptism “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor considered unnecessary, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles.” long before 1500. Paul isn’t inventing a new metaphor. Heart circumcision was already the OT expectation (Deut 10, Jer 4, Ezek 36). Baptism is the new covenant sign of that inward reality, just as circumcision was. The change is not less inclusion but more (now Gentiles, women, slaves). Galatians… Read more »
Acts 16:33 says that his household was baptised… and Acts 16:34 says that his household believed. How do you find infants being baptised independently of professed belief there? I never said nor believe (but rather the opposite) that Paul invented the concept of heart circumcision. You’ve entirely misunderstood what I was explaining by pointing out that Colossians 2:11-12 does not crudely equate baptism with circumcision in a simple replacement-of-symbols switch. The construction says something else which is more nuanced: we have no need to be circumcised, not because we’ve been baptised, but because we’ve had heart circumcision, which is why… Read more »
Belief, or “professed” belief? Faith saves. Profession in due course is an outflow of true faith, but “faith” and “professed faith” are two distinguishable things. You clearly favor professional (!?) baptism. I favor baptism by faith, which I maintain we must in every case assume, not matter how wonderful the profession.
Why should I not take the meaning of ‘children’ in Acts 2 to mean ‘descendants’?
And furthermore: “what is the promise”? Why is it identified with “eligibility for infant baptism”? The word “promise” in Acts comes many times and has clear eschatological, fulfilment-based content. When paedobaptists claim that primarily here it’s a code-word for “this covenant works outwardly largely like the Old one”, that makes Acts 2:38 into a singleton contradicted by the other uses in the book.
the “promise” isn’t a code-word we’ve invented. Peter is deliberately echoing Genesis 17 — “I will be God to you and to your children.” In Acts 2 the promise is fulfilled in Christ and the Spirit, but the covenant shape remains the same: you, your children, and now the nations. That’s why Peter adds “all who are far off.”
Far from being a singleton, Paul makes the same link in Galatians 3:14 — Abraham’s promise, Gentiles included, Spirit given. To say the promise now skips our children would be a contraction, not a fulfillment. Expansion is the whole point.
There are many ways in which Peter’s words could be construed. To know how to actually best construe them, we examine the context. That’s not only the long range canonical context in Genesis, but also the surrounding context of what actually happens in Acts 2. Galatians 3:14 doesn’t help you at all: “that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Those who receive the blessing of Abraham are in this verse identified as those who receive the Holy Spirit. That’s fulfilment, that’s reality. That’s… Read more »
I’m not sure I understand the question
I infer Ken to mean that when paedobaptists say that Acts 2:38 is coded language whose interpreted meaning is “your new-born babies should be baptised”, he wonders where you get such precise specificity from. It’s much more natural in context to read Peter as saying something like “you, your descendants, Gentiles – whoever believes on the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved; it’s not just Jews now, but the Messiah has come for everyone; it’s the time of fulfilment and reality and of the Holy Spirit, which you now see and hear – so believe in him and… Read more »
Yeah, I take ‘you and your children and those far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call’ to mean ‘as many of you as God calls, and as many of your children as He calls, and as many of those far off as He calls.’ But if He doesn’t call infants, they go to Hell. So He must call infants, right? So baptize them, and continue to teach them the faith and repentance; but what they hear and understand and believe is likely to exceed what they can articulate; indeed, it had better.
What you propose there, though, is not the Reformed argument for paedobaptism. It doesn’t particularly select for the first-generation offspring of believing parents. God calls Muslims too. So, baptism them, and then continue to evangelise them….?
This is sacramentalist thinking, but that’s a significantly different line of thought to “they’re already covenant members by inheritance”.
Precisely! I have not learnt Greek but I understand from those who have that if Peter had specifically wanted to refer to what we call infants, babies, he had a word he could have used. The word he did use has a range of meaning, including posterity.
I really don’t think you can wangle infant baptism into this passage. If infants can be baptised, why not those who are afar off? Just go around baptising everyone!
The fly in the ointment is the word repent, which is something babies cannot do.
I tried to post on the 2nd of those. Only faith in Christ saves; so if infants are saved, they’re saved by this faith; so infant baptism is believers’ baptism, and we do need to be more careful to encourage growth and alert for falling away. (This is not Doug’s view; as you say, paedobaptism has varieties. Read J.C. Ryle in “Knots Untied” on Regeneration; to be presumed for the moment.)
Nothing in what you just said selects particularly for the immediate (one-generation) offspring of Christian believers. As such, the logic works equally well no matter what word you choose to substitute for “infant”, thus demonstrating that it doesn’t work.
I was assuming, and expecting readers to pick up, “infants” who are going to church, hearing and participating in family devotions and gospel discussions, etc; and NOT other infants. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing starts in the womb (Jn the Baptist: hearing the gospel with joy starts in the womb.) Special cases God can handle. And of the course the saving baptism is of the Spirit in the heart, not the one that removes some dirt from the body.
Even if babies could believe that God raised Jesus from the dead they are hardly able to confess Jesus is Lord!
It should also be mentioned that paedobaptists argue for baptising them at the point when they explicitly, universally, can’t do any of understanding, believing, responding, confessing, in any form whatsoever. The attempt by some paedobaptists to turn the debate into one about whether or not infants can be regenerate is significant concession. “John the Baptist was regenerate, therefore all infants of Christian parents should be baptised in infancy, otherwise you’ve denied what God can do” is about as arbitrary, disconnected a line of argument as you could get.
John would not have been baptized on a Baptist church.
Our holy children are also not baptized in a Baptist church.
Either they are saved and should be baptized, or they are going to hell and they aren’t holy.
Prove to me that my children were incapable of any of that as infants. Then tell me how that doesn’t apply to John and Timothy.
Your demands are entirely irrelevant, since I do not, and have not, denied that young children can be saved. The Reformed argument for infant baptism is not predicated upon those who are baptised being known to be saved, and correspondingly the Reformed Baptist denial of infant baptism is not predicated upon the claim that all infants are lost either.
Saved without faith? Tell us about it.
Tell you about what, precisely? I can tell you about things that God has revealed in the Bible. About other things, why do you want to know them, and why do you believe they should make a difference? I can believe happily that John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit because the Scripture tells me so. That that means that all children of Christian parents in the first generation should be baptised, does not in any way follow.
Or Jesus.
If they cannot believe they go to Hell. Is that your position?
Or, perhaps they are saved without faith somehow. Is that your position? If so, care to expound it a bit?
My position is that God has revealed to us the things we need to know in order to be able to live as the church. On other things, since he is God, I do not need to worry myself. Apparently you are worried, though?
In that case they must all be going to hell, but are somehow still holy?
I expect you’re referring to 1 Corinthians 7. Do you believe that the unbelieving spouse, likewise said to be holy, is going to heaven? Should the unbelieving spouse be baptised?
Once again, the key point that the paedobaptist needs to be made – that the child possesses some sort of “covenantal holiness” by descent, which entitles them to baptism – is entirely between the lines, and not the actual subject Paul was discussing in the chapter. Why do paedobaptists not like to appeal to chapters in which the precise nature of the New Covenant *is* the direct, explicit subject?
How are (some) infants saved?
I say: by hearing and faith, to be expressed in due course. (Infants conceived deaf, trust God; they’re not immune to the Holy Ghost.)
Why do you need to know? God has revealed plenty of things for us to be getting on with. It seems to be an implicit part of some paedobaptist argumentation that God can’t possibly have left us with uncertainty, and therefore doctrines which remove any uncertainty are to be preferred. Not that anyone says that out loud, of course, but it’s the implication of the never-absent insinuations that the Baptist position is problematic because it doesn’t simply assert a single status automatically to all children in Christian families.
This is, I suppose, the paedobaptist misunderstanding that if Baptists think that the New Testament teaches that baptism is for people who are converted, rather than being an automatic inheritance of infant children, that this in some way entails that you think infants can’t be saved, or that they should be discouraged from believing the gospel, or some other (rarely ever explained) non sequitor like that?
So are they saveable, or not?
I’m not convinced God has revealed the status of infants and those who are too young to be accountable (Deut 29 : 29?). It would be nice to believe they are all saved, but I think we have to content ourselves with the truth that the Judge of all the earth will do right.
I can’t help noticing how much people in CREC circles are drawn to doctrines that offer them certainty. Infants baptised, infants communed asap, all children saved if you follow the promises, here’s the exact procedure for child discipline, here’s exactly what to do if your wife doesn’t do the dishes, here’s a straight line from honouring households to deciding who can vote in 21st century America – all so beautifully tied up, we have worked everything out. But who in the New Testament does that mindest most closely represent? Who in there can’t deal with even small degrees of uncertainty?
Again, this doesn’t particularly select only for children of Christian parents. Lots of us went to schools where there were daily Bible readings and Bible classes. Should all children at Christian nursery schools be baptised, i.e. it’s not really about parentage at all? (And no, a pragmatic get-out “well, probably the parents’ wouldn’t allow it anyway” doesn’t work when we’re debating the principles – after all, some might).
To note: only grace saves through faith.
The thing to be shown from Scripture is a change in which our children who are too young to believe are no longer members of “the people of God.” Abraham’s infants belonged to God from the start, but in the New Covenant our infants are aliens and strangers until a credible profession of faith? The hypocrisy of adults (such as the Pharisees) addressed by John the Baptizer does not speak to this. No one disputes that adults who reject Christ then or now put themselves outside the people of God. (Sorry—no time now to peruse your comments on the other… Read more »
John, you repeat the paedobaptist assertions which my essay is a detailed response to. In these assertions you make certain unexamined and unjustified moves which, when actually examined, turn out to be problematic.
please tell what assertions he makes specifically so we can see the specific argument in your blog post with regards to his comment.
John merely re-words the question that my entire essay is a response to, so essentially, all of them. I infer that you don’t want to read a long essay. OK. But let’s start here then: > “Abraham’s infants belonged to God from the start” A false statement; they didn’t. In fact, the inspired apostle tells us in Roman 9, in the first 2 generations God declined to include some of the offspring, and Romans 9 says that God did this so what we might understand that there is a distinction between the children and the seed – and thus, now… Read more »
Where do you keep getting this idea that it was from the 1500s?
Infant baptism, of course, appears definitely in church history by the 3rd century. But the specific covenantal answer given by Reformed paedobaptists to the question of *why* infants are baptised does not appear before the Protestant Reformation. I’m also happy to refute the ideas that the Bible teaches that infants should be baptised in order to remove original sin, or to make sure they died in a state of sacramental grace, or that it effected regeneration, if you are someone who believes any of those things, but it ought to be recognised that those are radically different doctrines to the… Read more »
How’d it emerge?
In the nature of the length of time (remember that even for an event such as Caesar’s Gallic wars, the earliest documents we have for it come several hundred years later), we don’t really know. Sufficient documentation to show us hasn’t survived. What we do know is that by the time it had emerged, supposing that the Reformed argument for it was the one that the apostles held to and taught in the churches, that by then nobody at all was aware of that or evidences having heard of it. i.e. When it emerges, it emerges without the reasons that… Read more »
What Paul says is that when God said “Through Isaac’s line.” It meant it would be through Isaac’s line. This doesn’t mean that our children aren’t holy.
What, your children are holy like the temple is holy? Should we remove our shoes when approaching them?
Of course, I am making a facetious remark there – but I mean to challenge you to spell out what manner of “holiness” you believe them to possess, and to demonstrate that it is a concept that exists under the New Covenant.
they possess the holiness of being set apart from the rest of the world by being under the covenant. The concept must exist unless you redefine holiness from its agreed upon definition throughout scripture (set apart for the lord).
Romans 11, breaking branches off?
These assertions actually reply to your comments on that specific passage. My comment may not be worthy of a reply with content, but at least I did not simply say you have assumptions that plainly ignore what is “membership” in “the people of God” in both Old and New Covenants. With so much talking past one another on such a large subject, no combox discussion, whether here or on your own website, seems likely to give a satisfactory outcome beyond agreeing to disagree, perhaps amicably. Is amicable disagreement likely when paedobaptist argument is dismissed as somehow not from Scripture, or… Read more »
> “The hypocrisy of adults (such as the Pharisees) addressed by John the Baptizer does not speak to this.” It very much does speak to it, because John the Baptist and Jesus both affirm that the Pharisees were, despite their adulthood and hypocrisy, still covenant members under the terms of the Old Covenant. This is an important clue that the formula “believers and their children” was *not* how covenant membership was construed under the Old Covenant, i.e. is not the correct interpretation of “Abraham and his seed”. Hence the paedobaptist assertion that “silence, therefore strict continuity” builds upon a wrong… Read more »
David, paedobaptist here, even after reading your whole paper carefully. Too many problems to explore in this space (also typing on my phone at 2:45 in the morning), but one thing that reveals something about your own scriptural spectacles (in addition to the Colossians passage mentioned above) was the omission of any discussion of 1 Cor 10:1-6. It’s quite a glaring omission, in my view, given your line of argumentation. I also read Welty long ago (his critiques helped me finally embrace paedocommunion), and skimmed again the article you linked, to see if that passage was among the ones you… Read more »
When you find the time to make a response, I’ll be glad to respond to it. As I say, the blog post is the best place to post a response since this site here doesn’t notify me of responses to my posts.
One of the strangest notions brought about by infant baptism is the concept of ‘non-elect members of the covenant’. To me this makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly such a baptism did not save them! What’s the point of it then?
I think the answer to this question is in many (I do not say “all”) cases not theological but sociological. Reformed paedobaptists,in my observation, are largely drawn by the desire to belong to a particular tribe (whether a group in the world today, or the fellowship of past theological heroes), or by the desire to have some sort of certainty about the status of their beloved children (which as you point out, doesn’t actually deliver what’s promised – which may well be why Federal Visionists felt the need to go further doctrinally and get more of that desired certainty; again).
Strange notion to me too. To whom is Colossians 2:11-12 speaking, if the baptized are not understood to be the same as the elect? I think the people who hold to covenant theology would point to the old covenant, wherein “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”, but nonetheless all male infants were circumcised. The assumption, I guess, is that there needs to be an exact correspondence between the act of circumcising under the old covenant and the act of baptizing under the new covenant. That makes it appear to me as something done pro forma, if… Read more »
> “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” The problem for paedobaptists when they appeal to this principle is that Paul is using it to explain why now, under the New Covenant, those who were previously of the “external membership” are no longer included at all. i.e. When ultimately deployed as an argument for “strict continuity, no change in who is a member”, it has been ripped completely out of context. Paul does not deny that unbelieving Israelites were legitimate members of the Old Covenant. To make his observation into an argument for why people not who… Read more »
To let them take communion. Baptists have the same problem, studies estimate about a quarter of baptists children who got believer’s baptism apostasize in college.
There is no actual *theological* problem for Baptists (of any sort of evangelical variety) there; Baptists don’t claim that baptism is a guarantee of salvation, or was carried out on the basis of infallible knowledge. Neither do they claim that Baptism brings them into the New Covenant. The basis for baptism is that the person is believed to have manifested that he is part of that covenant, having repented and believed and shown evidence of the Holy Spirit in his life. If this turns out to not be the actual case, it does not mean that any claim to infallible… Read more »
Thanks for the answer to the notion of non-elect members of the covenant and infant baptism justifying children taking communion. Interestingly coming from an Anglican background where infant baptism is the norm, and according to the liturgy makes the child regenerate, the policy after that is strict absence from the communion service until and unless the person is confirmed, which at least in theory is when they have accepted for themselves the promises made on their behalf. I was never done as a child despite my parents attending an Anglican church, and I suspect the reason was because they believed… Read more »
I would say that confirmation is a bunch of leftover catholic heresy. They are in and if they were to reject the promises they would be out, but you cannot bar them from the table unless they are excommunicated. On the multiple baptisms note, we are told one lord, one faith, one baptism. Thus had you been baptized (your parents had good reasoning), you would have been coming into the baptism by later accepting Christianity. Pragmatic reasons to dismiss biblical teaching are a really dangerous idea. While I don’t think credobaptism will break a country, once you start the “well… Read more »
I would say that confirmation at least shows in Catholic and Anglican circles that there is more to the faith than infant baptism. At some level there needs to be personal appropriation. (My wife was infant baptised and confirmed, but only became a believer later having finally heard the gospel. So the ceremonies do not appear to have ‘taken’!) One faith one Lord one baptism does not mean you can only be baptised once. There is one valid baptism, and if faith is a requirement then any religious ceremonies performed, even with good intentioins, prior to conversion and believing are… Read more »
Happy Feast of Saint Oliver Cromwell the Great, everyone (for another two hours EST). On 3 September he won his victories at Dunbar and Worcester, and entered into Heaven (A.D. 1650, ’51, and ’58).. Patron saint of Christian nationalists, anyone? /// Good short book about him, “Oliver Cromwell” by Barry Coward. Coward argues that Cromwell consistently sought, for England, both freedom and righteousness, and did not find the combination easy. If you want something even shorter and simpler, C. V. Wedgwood’s “Oliver Cromwell”is OK. If you’re up for a 500-page bio, I enjoyed “Cromwell: the Lord Protector by Antonia Fraser.… Read more »
Interesting how a civil war around religion is praised and a civil war around slavery is disparaged in these parts. Not a good look for Christian nationalists but keep it up.
Cromwell fought for Christ’s crown rights; the South fought for the same principle of ordered liberty under God. The North wrapped itself in moral slogans while waging an industrial slaughter, shredding the Constitution, and enthroning federal Leviathan. Cromwell resisted tyrannical monarchy; the Confederacy resisted tyrannical centralization. If you want to find continuity, it isn’t between Cromwell and Lincoln, but between Cromwell and Lee (who were both against slavery just like us) — men who knew that righteousness without liberty is tyranny, and liberty without righteousness is anarchy.
Still sounds like you’re defending slavery…so…
Moral slogans? You mean like “ordered liberty under God”? A third of the population in the antebellum south just wasn’t feeling it, the liberty part I mean.
How did the North shred the constitution? And how was Lee against slavery?
they got rid of states rights. Interesting fact, Virginia actually entered the constitutional union with an explicit protection that they reserved the right to secede.
also note the tenth amendment.
See any biography about Lee. Especially the ones written by the left.
Virginia unilaterally declaring its right to secede did not make it so. No state has ever had the right to secede on its own. Texas v. White (1869).
Lee through his actions was continuing slavery, potentially indefinitely. He was an idealist that would have allowed it and prayed for it to be “more Christian.” Coward, racist, and loser.
I can ill express how happy I am to read your denunciation of Lee. I have always been a little uneasy that, although I’m quite happy to have slavery ended, yet I still somehow could not escape a niggling sense that Lee was nonetheless worthy of considerable respect. You have cleared my conscience wonderfully through the thoroughness and fairmindedness with which you demonstrated how applicable all your criticisms truly were to General Lee.
John Brown > Robert E Lee
Robert E Lee had his slaves whipped and backs washed with brine. A true monster getting Kentucky fried in hell as we speak.
Some more argument for those interested in the paedobaptism debate: https://mothwo.blogspot.com/2025/09/infant-baptism-requires-two-separable.html
the Old Testament already shows the pattern you claim doesn’t exist. Ishmael and Esau bore the covenant sign but were cut off — “not all Israel is Israel” was never a New Testament invention. God’s covenant was always broader in administration than in election. That’s why the sign was given to the children: because God deals with households, even while His sovereign choice makes the ultimate distinction. When the seed is revealed as Christ, the covenant isn’t stripped down to isolated individuals — it’s expanded. Baptism is given not only to Jews but to Gentiles, not only to men but… Read more »
> “the Old Testament already shows the pattern you claim doesn’t exist. Ishmael and Esau bore the covenant sign but were cut off — “not all Israel is Israel” was never a New Testament invention.” You fail to recognise the significance of this as the New Testament itself explains it. In Romans 9 Paul points to their cutting off as specifically signifying the fact that there is a distinction between Abraham’s seed and his children – i.e. between those who are merely of the flesh, and those who are actual children of God; and that now under the New Covenant,… Read more »
Scribbler, you said, “Baptism is given not only to Jews but to Gentiles, not only to men but to women, not only to masters but to slaves.” Very true, but only to believing ones. Moreover, the members of the covenant of grace have always and only been regenerate people – not of a mixed nature. That is, the covenant of grace has never consisted of believers and unbelievers. It is certainly true that individual churches may include a mixed nature, but the covenant of grace in salvation history does not. The covenant of grace is God’s promise to redeem humanity… Read more »