“Covenant faithlessness in no way removes or erases covenant obligations or connections. There are multiple texts that show that the baptized faithless are connected to Christ in an important and very real sense. This is why it can truly be said that I believe in the objectivity of the covenant. But there is another sense in which such a person does not belong to Christ because he lives in darkness — which is why I am an evangelical” (Against the Church, p. 162).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
What if baptism was never meant to be an expression of the objectivity of the New Covenant, but a public vindication of a response to it? That’s the picture we get in the New Testament. In Old Covenant terms, baptism corresponds to the Covenant Oath (heart circumcision), not circumcision of the flesh, which is why the wilderness children were spared. Every baptism account in Acts follows the Covenant pattern and puts the baptism at the Oath. Of course, the Oath is now the personal profession of the name of Jesus, swearing allegiance to a new Lord. Also, if baptism expresses… Read more »
So they’re “connected to Christ in an important and very real sense.” But how? What is the nature of this connection?
Mike, Circumcision and the law were intended to lead Israel to Christ. In Philippians 3, Paul counts that heritage (and everything else) worthless, if valued apart from Christ, and in place of Christ. This can happen even with baptism. If people baptized as adults depend on the rite itself for salvation, they must be willing to count it “as loss that they might know Christ.” The distinction between profession and the spiritual state of the heart cannot be avoided. Even for a baptized adult, no one can tell if they are a “true” member of Christ. Therefore baptized “status” is… Read more »
Thanks John I don’t dispute that not every profession is genuine. That’s what church discipline is for – to bring true repentance. But the sacraments are not about bringing people to Christ. They are about publicly qualifying witnesses for Christ. Sacramentalism is thus, logically, as much “another Gospel” as anything the Judaizers peddled. This is why I think the Nazirite/knighthood illustration concerning the nature of baptism is instructive. A Nazirite was a mobile priest-warrior, a human tabernacle. Our swords are our tongues. No babies at the round table. Unless babies can be witnesses. “Even on my servants, both men and… Read more »
Thank you Mike for taking the time to respond. A better baptist view agrees with presbyterians that baptism is a sign of coming to Christ, and that the supper confirms and nurtures being in Christ (see the London Baptist Confession 29:1 and 30:1). This hardly qualifies as sacramentalism, or another Gospel. If other baptist preconceptions are put aside for a moment, maybe these items would carry some weight with you: The youth of the wilderness generation were almost not spared immediate death with their parents. The children and parents alike were bound by the oath imposed in their baptism in… Read more »