This article originated as a position paper written for the purpose of my studies with The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Autumn 2021.
INTRODUCING THE ISSUE
This article will seek to identify the proper subjects of Christian baptism, arguing that only those presenting credible evidence of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized. It begins by outlining the two main positions, paedobaptism and credobaptism, as articulated by their most prominent proponents.[1] It then argues that credobaptism is correct for three main reasons: the norm of the New Testament, the symbolism of baptism and the compositional change in the new covenant. The article concludes by defending this view from two of its most common objections.
To sincerely study this subject is a serious task. Embracing either position results in a separation, however charitable, from countless historical heroes and current Christian brothers. Nevertheless, if we are to be obedient, neutrality is not an option. Therefore, we must proceed in the spirit, and with the fervent prayer, of J. L. Dagg:
Church order and the ceremonials of religion, are less important than a new heart; and in the view of some, any laborious investigation of questions respecting them may appear to be needless and unprofitable. But we know, from the Holy Scriptures, that Christ gave commands on these subjects, and we cannot refuse to obey. Love prompts our obedience; and love prompts also the search which may be necessary to ascertain his will. Let us, therefore, prosecute the investigations which are before us, with a fervent prayer, that the Holy Spirit, who guides into all truth, may assist us to learn the will of him whom we supremely love and adore.[2]
SURVEYING THE POSITIONS
The paedobaptist position holds, "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."[3] In contrast, credobaptism holds, "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience, to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."[4] By comparing these, it is clear the key issue in dispute is whether children belong to the same covenant as their believing parents and, as such, should be baptized. Focusing on this point, this article first outlines the paedobaptist position and then explains the credobaptist view.
THE PAEDOBAPTIST POSITION
The influential Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield begins his treatment of baptism by explaining, "The question of the Subjects of Baptism is one of that class of problems the solution of which hangs upon a previous question. According as is our doctrine of the Church, so will be our doctrine of the Subjects of Baptism."[5] This is undoubtedly crucial to understanding the paedobaptist position. Like credobaptism, it holds that baptism, as the initiating ordinance for the covenant community, should be administered to all who belong to the church.[6] However, the key difference is that paedobaptists, like Charles Hodge, assert "the visible Church consists of all those who profess the true religion together with their children."[7][italics added] As a result, the dispute over the subjects of baptism is really a dispute over the membership of Christ’s body.[8] Paedobaptists argue that such children belong within the church for at least three main reasons.
(1) The Continuity of the Community
First, it is argued that infants belong to God’s people in the New Testament because they belonged in the Old Testament. The foundation for this is that there is only one continuous covenant community across the Bible.[9] Paedobaptists primarily believe this because they understand there to be one covenant of grace in the Bible. They argue if God has a single plan of salvation, namely on condition of faith in Jesus, it follows there is one group saved by this plan.[10] James Bannerman reasons, "The oneness of the covenant of grace in every age necessarily implies the oneness of the Church of God in every age."[11]
This concept of one community under one covenant is rooted in their reading of the Bible. For example, in the Old Testament, Louis Berkhof argues the Abrahamic covenant is "primarily a spiritual covenant", albeit with "a national aspect" (Gen 12–17; Rom 4:16-18; Gal 3:8).[12] He asserts it is "essentially identical with the "new covenant" of the present dispensation," as it has the same mediator (Acts 4:12; Gal 3:16), condition of faith (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3), and blessings, such as justification (Ps 32:1-2; Rom 4:9) and regeneration (Deut 30:6). From a New Testament perspective, Charles Hodges argues tht the church is clearly stated to be analogous to the Old Testament nation of Israel (Rom 11:16-17; Gal 3:29). For this reason, Herman Bavinck concludes, "The covenant of grace established with Israel, though it changed in dispensation, remained the same in essence. The church has replaced the Israel of the Old Testament."[13]
The implication that such a conclusion has for including infants in the church is clear. In words that that have defined the debate for over a century, Warfield summarizes:
The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.[14]
(2) The Connection with Circumcision
Secondly, as Warfield states, paedobaptists believe their children should be baptized because Israelite children were circumcised. This is also based on a premise of continuity, this time between baptism and circumcision. In support of this, John Calvin argues both symbolize the same realities, such as mortification (Deut 10:16) and eternal life (Gen 17:7; Matt 22:32).[15] As a result, Calvin concludes, "apart from the difference in the visible ceremony, whatever belongs to circumcision pertains likewise to baptism."[16] Bavinck argues Paul makes this explicit by telling believers they are "circumcised . . . by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism" (Col 2:11-12 ESV). As a result, he concludes "circumcision was replaced by baptism."[17]Likewise, Mike Ross points out that while Abraham was circumcised following his faith (Rom 4:11), his offspring were circumcised without it, and so proposes that baptism must follow the same pattern.[18] Bannerman summarizes, "If we can prove that they meant the same thing, and held the same place, and performed the same office in the Church of God in former and in later times, it were difficult to object to the conclusion that the one ought to be administered to the same infant members of the Church as was the other."[19]
(3) The Traces in the New Testament
Finally, paedobaptists argue their position is implicitly, rather than explicitly, supported by the New Testament. Bavinck declares, "we need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism." He reasons that legitimate inferences are as binding as express statements in the development of any doctrine.[20] Paedobaptists argue the New Testament not only confirms their case by describing one continuous community and a connection with circumcision, but also by including repeated references to households (Acts 2:38; 11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8), exhortations to children in epistles (Eph 6:1), and viewing children as "holy" (1 Cor 7:14).[21] Notwithstanding this, Warfield asserts, "if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament."[22]
THE CREDOBAPTIST POSITION
[23] While the credobaptist position is developed more fully below, it is usually based on three arguments, which largely correspond to those that have been outlined for paedobaptism.
(1) The Composition of the Church
First, with respect to the key point of dispute, credobaptists reject the inclusion of believers’ children in the covenantal community, asserting that the church is a "company of regenerate persons".[24] This concept of regenerate membership is foundational, so much so that it has been called "the Baptist mark of the church" and "cardinal principle of Baptist ecclesiology".[25] It finds its foundation in the Old Testament, where God promises a future community who will all know him through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-30).[26] Credobaptists contend that Hebrews 8 confirms this promise is currently fulfilled in the church.[27] Further, they argue the rest of the New Testament reflects this reality. For example, Dagg and John Gill both show churches are constantly described as communities of the regenerate in Acts, and are addressed and treated as such in the Epistles.[28] As a result, Dagg concludes, "No doubt can exist that these churches were, in the view of the inspired writers who addressed them, composed of persons truly converted to God."[29] As explained above, both positions agree that baptism is the sign of entrance into the covenant community. However, because credobaptists believe this community to be completely regenerate, they will only baptize those for which there is credible evidence of such regeneration.
(2) The Symbolism of the Sign
Secondly, credobaptists assert that the symbolism of baptism shows it should be limited to believers. For example, A. H. Strong argues it pictures: the death and resurrection of Christ (Mark 10:38; Rom 6:3), this event delivering sinners (Rom 6:3; Col 2:12), the accomplishment of this deliverance for the baptized (Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21), their union with Christ that accomplishes it (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12), and their resulting union in Christ with all believers (Eph 4:5; 1 Cor 12:13).[30] Credobaptists point out that these realities are only for the regenerate. For this reason, Bobby Jamieson concludes that baptizing a subject without credible evidence of such union with Christ "divorces the sign from the reality it expresses."[31]
(3) The Trajectory of the New Testament
Finally, credobaptists highlight that faith and repentance are consistently presented as the qualifications for baptism in the New Testament. Dagg traces this from the ministry of John the Baptist, through that of Jesus, and into that of the apostles (Matt 3:6; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:38; 8:12; 18:8).[32] He also highlights that when epistles reference baptism they assume that those baptized are all believers (Rom 6:3; Col 2:12; Gal 3:26-27; 1 Pet 3:21). Gill demonstrates other regenerate realities are also associated with baptism, such as illumination (Acts 9:18), discipleship (John 4:1) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47).[33] By this, the New Testament commends credobaptism, for it only commands the baptism of believers and never envisages the intentional baptism of an unbeliever.
SUPPORTING CREDOBAPTISM
This article will now argue that credobaptism is the correct position, constructing a concrete case for it by making the following three arguments. These are given in the order set out below as this presents a case that logically strengthens and advances as each argument is made.
(1) The New Testament Norm
The clear practice in the New Testament is baptizing those who have repented and believed in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 38; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8). While paedobaptists accept this, they argue this does not exclude the extension of baptism to children of believers, with Warfield even suggesting that the baptismal passages are neutral on this point.[34] However, it is unreasonable to characterize these passages as neutral. While they do not explicitly prohibit paedobaptism, their repeated references to conversion and silence regarding unbelieving infants, is more than sufficient to reverse the burden of proof and require paedobaptists to provide clear evidence for their practice. Far from being neutral, the New Testament baptismal passages set a norm of only baptizing those who present credible evidence of their regeneration. Of course, the Old Testament context for this pattern should certainly be investigated. However, we must not overlook the fact that the New Testament presents a clear presumption for credobaptism.
As for alleged traces of paedobaptism, such interpretations are either unnecessary or inconsistent. For example, Peter’s promise in Acts 2:39 references "all who are far off" as well as children, and it offers forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit on repentance, not unconditional covenant membership. Further, where households are mentioned (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8), the context makes clear such members were able to both understand and respond to the gospel (Acts 10:2; 16:32, 34; 18:8).[35] In any event, it should not be forgotten that paedobaptism is not the same as household baptism, for unbelieving spouses and domestic workers are not baptized, despite the latter being circumcised (Gen 17:23). Baptizing unbelieving spouses is the consistent application of the paedobaptist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14, for they have the same ‘holy’ status as children. However, this verse has a range of readings that do not necessitate children belonging to the new covenant, which the rest of Scripture clearly restricts us from concluding.[36]
Bavinck is correct that the New Testament "never once mentions the administration of baptism to adults who were born of Christian parents."[37] However, without clear evidence to the contrary, this silence is best seen as censure. As above, the New Testament consistently presents a presumption of credobaptism. The best paedobaptist proponents accept this, with the position entirely depending on their understanding of the compositional continuity of the covenantal community.[38] In Warfield’s own words, alleged traces of pedobaptism in the New Testament are simply "obscure allusions" that are "summoned" to support this more fundamental argument.[39]
(2) The Sign’s Symbolism
If the norm of the New Testament presents a presumption for credobaptism, baptism’s theological symbolism proves this to be true. As argued above, Paul sees baptism as a symbol of union with Christ, being buried in death and raised to life with him (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12).[40] This picture of immersion and emersion is central to the sign.[41] These realities are said to be "through faith" (Col 2:12), "an appeal to God" (1 Pet 3:21), and are related to receiving the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Indeed, Paul seems to see baptism without the Spirit as invalid (Acts 19:1-6). Baptism is likewise presented as a picture of cleansing from sin. While this is implicit in Paul’s writings (1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5),[42] it is explicit in his words in Acts 22:16. As such realities only relate to the regenerate, it is unclear what the baptism of an unregenerate infant shows. Indeed, given baptism also pictures being submerged in judgement (Mark 10:38-39; 1 Pet 3:20-21), the baptism of those without a resurrecting union with Christ symbolizes condemnation not blessing.
Paedobaptists mostly affirm this theology of baptism.[43] As a result, it has been argued baptizing unregenerate infants even contradicts their own definition.[44] Paedobaptists admit there is such an appearance, accepting the "practice of baptizing infants may be regarded at first sight as running counter to all those views which we have already asserted in regard to the nature of Sacraments in general, and of Baptism in particular."[45] They attempt to resolve this by relating baptism to circumcision (Col 2:11-12; Rom 4:11). However, to do so, they must overlook the biblical distinction between physical and spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Rom 2:29). For example, in Colossians 2:11, baptism is aligned with "circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh", which is clearly spiritual circumcision of the heart. As this is analogous to regeneration (Ezk 36:26-27), it actually supports credobaptism. On the other hand, physical circumcision is fulfilled in Christ, not replaced by baptism (Acts 15:1-35; Gal 6:15).[46]
From Romans 4:11, paedobaptists argue circumcision sealed the covenant of grace.[47] However, Paul calls circumcision "a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith", not a seal of the covenant of grace. Even the paedobaptist John Murray accepts it "signified and sealed his faith" and admits any true sign or seal "presupposes the existence of the thing sealed".[48] It being a seal of faith is further confirmed in 4:11-12, where Paul states it made Abraham the father of those who have faith, and expressly excludes those circumcised without it. Further, there is no indication that circumcision acted as a seal for anyone other than Abraham.[49] Therefore, while the connection with circumcision is crucial for understanding why paedobaptists correctly define baptism and yet incorrectly apply it, only credobaptism rightly reflects the reality symbolized.
(3) The Covenantal Change
While the previous two points present and prove credobaptism as the presumption of the New Testament, a final argument is needed to confirm this beyond all reasonable doubt.[50] The compositional continuity of the covenantal community is the cornerstone of paedobaptism, and this inner citadel must be captured if the fortress is to fall. Connecting the new covenant with the previous biblical covenants "takes us to the heart of the baptismal divide."[51] Paedobaptists reason that because there is a single source of salvation, there must be a continuous covenant community. However, Stephen Wellum shows that a more progressive reading of the covenants is preferrable to this ‘flattened’ understanding. The Abrahamic covenant is not applied "exactly the same way across the canon", but has multiple aspects, like typological and national, meaning it is erroneous to equate it exactly with the new covenant.[52] While Israel is a type of the church, a type is not identical to its antitype, for there is always progression and discontinuity.[53] Further, the new covenant promise (Jer 31:29-34), which is fulfilled in Christ (Luke 22:20) and forms the church (Hebrews 8–10), is the promise of a coming community that is not like the community of the old covenant.[54] This community is clearly regenerate: they all have the law written on their hearts (Jer 31:33) and they all know God and will experience the forgiveness of sin (Jer 31:34).
The New Testament consistently reflects this, constantly describing and dealing with churches as regenerate communities. Indeed, if there is evidence a member is unregenerate, they are to be removed from the community through discipline (1 Cor 5). All of this is part of the new covenant’s newness, and changing from "a mixed community to that of a regenerate community" necessitates a similar change in the application of the covenant sign.[55] As all who belonged to the old covenant were circumcised, so all who belong to the new covenant should be baptized. The difference is that to belong to the old covenant was to be born of Israel, while to belong to the new covenant is to be born of the Spirit (John 3:5). As a result, baptism is only for those who present credible evidence of regeneration. Unless you believe baptism causes this, it is logically impossible to baptize an unregenerate infant into a regenerate community. As Jamieson explains, "The way into God’s new covenant people–the only way–is to be born again by the Spirit."[56]
DEFENDING CREDOBAPTISM
Objection 1: The Newness of the New Covenant
Some proponents of paedobaptism, such as Richard Pratt, respond by asserting that credobaptism is based on an ‘over-realized fulfillment’.[57] Pratt agrees Jeremiah 31 promises a covenant that is inviolable, internalized, and only includes the regenerate. However, he argues this is not achieved until the end of the age, when all promises will reach their final fulfilment.[58] Based on 1 Corinthians 7:14 and warnings of apostacy in Hebrews, he argues the new covenant can be broken and includes the unregenerate.[59] However, this not only ignores the more plausible interpretations of such passages, but also impacts the doctrine of perseverance by cancelling the certainty of salvation for at least some covenant members. Further, Pratt fails to deal with what he himself admits is the ‘straightforward logic’ of new covenant fulfilment texts (Luke 22:20; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8).[60] As Wellum explains, "Hebrews establishes the reality of the new covenant in the church without any hint that the full establishment of a regenerate community is yet future."[61]
While Pratt delays the new covenant, Jeffrey Niell denies aspects of its newness.[62] Based on the context of Hebrews 8, as well as his interpretation of "from the least to the greatest of them" (Jer 31:34), Niell restricts its newness to fulfillment of ceremonial law, removal of the Levitical priesthood and extension of priestly duties.[63] Neill’s contextual work helpfully brings out priestly aspects of the promise. However, he fails to show why this extended priesthood does not include every covenant member, as Jeremiah 31:31-34 suggests. For the church not only has an increase in priests, but is in fact called a "kingdom of priests" (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Objection 2: The Historicity of Paedobaptism
Another objection raised is "the historical evidence of the prevalence in the Christian Church of the custom of baptizing the infant children of believers."[64] However, it should not be pretended history speaks with a single voice, or even that it speaks at all. For example, Berkhof accepts, in the early church, The Didache speaks of adult baptism.[65]Further, as Bavinck admits, "until the time of Tertullian [c. 160–c. 220], all direct and firm witness to the fact that baptism was administered to the children of believers is, in fact, lacking."[66] In any event, the link between infant baptism and baptismal regeneration from the Patristic period until the Reformation is far more concerning than any historical silence around credobaptism.[67] Further, even if the silence of history must be relied on, this is to be preferred to paedobaptists’ relying on the silence of the New Testament. Finally, the paedobaptist position included in this article is no more historic than credobaptism, for the theological arguments relied on largely originated with Calvin.[68] Indeed, the Reformation itself is a helpful reminder that history is not always the handmaiden to truth.[69]
CONCLUSION
As proved above, paedobaptism ultimately contradicts the biblical texts and is based on a flawed view of covenantal continuity. Instead, Scripture supports credobaptism, confirming its view of the new covenant. In short, this article has shown that baptism is a sign for believers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868.
Bavinck, Herman. Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2008.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1938.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
Dagg, J. L. Manual of Theology, Second Part: A Treatise on Church Order. Charleston, SC; SBPS, 1859.
Gill, John. A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures. Vol. 1 & 2. Tegg & Company, 1839.
Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Jamieson, Bobby. Understanding Baptism. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016.
McGlothlin, W. J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1968.
Niell, Jeffrey D. "The Newness of the New Covenant." In The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, 127–55. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2003.
Pratt, Richard L., Jr. "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant." In The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, 156–74. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2003.
Ross, Mark E. "Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals." In The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, 85–111. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2003.
Schreiner, Thomas R. "Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers." In Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, 67–96. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia: ABPS, 1907.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.
The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Studies in Theology. Vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Wellum, Stephen J. "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants." In Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, 97–162. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
Wright, Shawn D. "Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists." In Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, 207–56. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
Wright, Shawn D. "Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church." In Baptist Foundations: Church Government for an Anti-Institutional Age, edited by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman, 107–30. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015.
[1] While other positions certainly exist, such as within Lutheran, Roman Catholic and Salvation Army traditions, paedobaptism and credobaptism have undoubtedly been the most common among evangelical Christians.
[2]J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Second Part (Charleston, SC; SBPS, 1859), 11.
[3] The Westminster Larger Catechism (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), Question 166.
[4] Chapter 29.2 of Second London Confession of Faith (1911) in W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 270. While we cannot perfectly determine the spiritual state of any baptismal candidate, we can wisely discern credible evidence of conversion (Matt 7:15-20; Acts 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5). This should be uncontroversial, as pedobaptists must likewise assess unbaptized adults.
[5] Benjamin B Warfield, Studies in Theology, vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 389.
[6] Bobby Jamieson, Understanding Baptism (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016), 45.
[7] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), vol. 3, 545.
[8] Herman Bavinck agrees, asserting, "The validity of infant baptism depends exclusively on how Scripture regards the children of believers." Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2008), 525.
[9] For example, James Bannerman asserts, "the Church of God, made up of His professing people, has been essentially the same in character in former and in latter times, and has always included infants among its members." James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), vol. 2, 75.
[10] Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, 262.
[11] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 2, 75.
[12] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1938), 632.
[13] Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 528.
[14] Warfield, Studies in Theology, 407. Similarly, John Calvin reasons, "if the covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians than under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1328.
[15] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1325.
[16] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1327.
[17] Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 526.
[18] Mark E. Ross, "Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals," in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2003), 89–97.
[19] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 2, 80–81.
[20] Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 526.
[21] For example, see Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 528; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1329; Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 2, 78; Warfield, Studies in Theology, 395–96.
[22] Warfield, Studies in Theology, 399.
[23] Throughout this article, credobaptism is seen as the position that only those with credible evidence of faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized. When describing the subject’s spiritual state, the terms faith, regeneration, repentance, conversion and believing in Christ are all used interchangeably, as Scripture also uses them in this way.
[24] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: ABPS, 1907), 945.
[25] John S Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 91–92.
[26] Shawn D Wright, "Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church," in Baptist Foundations, ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2015), 119.
[27] Stephen J. Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," in Believer’s Baptism, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 146.
[28] They argue churches are described as such communities (Acts 2:47; 5:14) and treated as such (Rom 1:6; 1 Cor 1:2; Gal 3:16; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 2:13). For example, regenerate realities, such as those in Ephesians 1, are applied to the whole church community. For more, see John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity Vol. 1 & 2. (Tegg & Company, 1839), 563–64; Dagg, Manual of Theology, 79.
[29] Dagg, Manual of Theology, 79.
[30] Strong, Systematic Theology, 940–42.
[31] Jamieson, Understanding Baptism, 25.
[32] Dagg, Manual of Theology, 68–69.
[33] Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, vol. 2, 626.
[34] Warfield, Studies in Theology, 396.
[35] Bavinck accepts this, admitting, "the entire family is saved (11:14; 16:31). Entire households believe and are baptized (16:15, 34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16)." Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 529.
[36] For a more consistent interpretation, see Thomas R. Schreiner, "Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers," in Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, 95. Again, Bavinck helpfully admits Paul is not "in any way thinking here of infant baptism nor of anything that might serve as a basis for it." He accepts this interpretation solely rests on the pre-existing premise of complete compositional continuity across the covenant of grace. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 529.
[37] Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 526.
[38] For example, Shawn Wright points out that the important paedobaptist proponent Pierre Marcel openly states that apart from their understanding of the covenant of grace and the compositional continuity of the covenant community, "there is no other reason for administering baptism to them." See Shawn D. Wright, "Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists," in Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, 234.
[39] Warfield, Studies in Theology, 391.
[40] Schreiner, "Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers," 74–77.
[41] Schreiner, "Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers," 82.
[42] Schreiner, "Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers," 83–86.
[43] Calvin states, "baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ’s blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into the fellowship of Christ." Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1325.
[44] Wright, "Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church," 112.
[45] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 2, 67.
[46] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 156.
[47] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 2, 73.
[48] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1968), 137.
[49] Jamieson, Understanding Baptism, 39.
[50] Bavinck believes credobaptism rests on the two arguments cited so far, viewing this as unsatisfactory as it fails to engage with paedobaptism’s primary argument of covenantal continuity. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 521. Wellum wisely reflects, "all other arguments for infant baptism are secondary to this overall line of reasoning. If one can establish the basic continuity of the "covenant of grace" across the canon, then it is the belief of most paedobaptists that their doctrine is biblically and theologically demonstrated . . . . Ultimately, if Baptists want to argue cogently against the paedobaptist viewpoint and for a believer’s baptism, we must, in the end, respond to this covenantal argument." Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 97–98.
[51] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 137.
[52] Wellum sees four aspects: natural (Gen 17:12, 20-21), national (Deut 7:7-10), typological (Gen 12:3; Gal 3:16) and spiritual (Gal 3:26-29). Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 128–35.
[53] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 132.
[54] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 137.
[55] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 138.
[56] Jamieson, Understanding Baptism, 31.
[57] Pratt Jr., Richard L., "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant," in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2003) 156.
[58] Pratt, "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant," 167–68.
[59] Pratt, "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,"169–73.
[60] Pratt, "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant," 167.
[61] Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 146.
[62] Niell, Jeffrey D., "The Newness of the New Covenant," Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 133. Neill argues the old covenant was also internalized (Deut 6:4-6) and included those who were regenerated (Hebrews 11) and forgiven (Ps 32:1-2). However, as Wellum states, credobaptism does not deny these realities existed in some old covenant members. Instead, it understands Jeremiah 31:31-34 to promise that they will exist in every member of the new covenant. Wellum, "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants," 141.
[63] Neill, "The Newness of the New Covenant," 142–51.
[64] Warfield, Studies in Theology, 390.
[65] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 635.
[66] Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 522.
[67] Strong, Systematic Theology, 953.
[68] Wright, "Baptism in History, Theology, and the Church," 112.
[69] Further, as Hammett highlights, over 400 years of credobaptism confirms that it is not simply a fading fad. "History rightly guards us against novel interpretations of the Bible, but the believers’ church is no longer a novel interpretation." Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 97.
ALEXANDER ARRELL