Baptism: A Covenantal View

        Rarely does a person find himself defending his beliefs in the
doctrines of the Church to another believer.  One reason is that
most people don't reason together anymore. One is allowed to
believe as they want as long as they don't try to convince you
that they are correct and you wrong.  Another reason is that
most don't care.  We live in a time where doctrine doesn't
appeal to most Christians. Thirdly, most people are in churches
where they are comfortable with the doctrine taught--and that is
where they stay--never having to hear anything but that
denominational belief.  I don't happen to fit any of the above. 
I reason with people.  Granted, I don't reason well in the spur
of the moment when my thoughts aren't all together on a
particular subject, and where I have time restrictions, but at
least I'm willing.

          I can't sit idle with one that differs with me on major
doctrines. I must search the scriptures to see if their beliefs
are correct, or if I might be prejudiced in a particular area
just because that's the only thing I have been taught, or just
because I like it better. I always go to Scripture hoping the
Holy Spirit will relieve me of these stumbling blocks.  

        Also, I care.  Not because I want to be right all the time. God
has allowed me plenty of humbling experiences where I have been
proven wrong.  In these experiences, I have found myself dealing
with feelings I didn't like.  I would feel that a certain belief
couldn't possibly be true--it didn't fit God, or my
understanding of particular sections of Scripture, etc.. Then
something wonderful always happens!  I go to Scripture--which to
me means being face to face with my God--and search, and dig,
and study, with a heart longing to know the truth--not just a
popular belief revealed--but Truth, as it is in Jesus Christ.
What begins to happen is that the 'peace of God rules my heart'
and He fills me with the comfort of His words.  Finally,  it
becomes profitable for the doctrine I am trying to understand.  

        Having never been raised in any particular denomination--I have
a more open mind to differing views, while keeping a firm
foundation in the thing all conservative Christianity has in
common and stands in unity over--the Word.  Every time I have
gone to anything but Scripture, I have floundered. Men of all
beliefs can sound so right, so brilliant!  However,  none of
them compare to God. 

        Having said all the above, I have compiled a short treatise on
the subject of Baptism. Not to convince anyone that I am right,
but to give an honest answer why I believe what I believe.  Also
it comes in handy to put down on paper what my studies have
revealed--so that they may stay profitable to  my mind when I
need refreshing (not that God can't right any wrong I may have
concluded, and I pray He will!!)  

        Finally, if I come across a person, or pastor, that is
concerned with my belief, instead of spending time debating this
issue, I can just give them a copy of this treatise.  As I
mature further on the subject (and I'm sure I will), I can come
along and add that knowledge.  It's much easier this way.

How does a person study?  I have heard it said that Scripture
defines Itself. I can't believe people scoff at that. 
Personally, this is what I believe.  Otherwise, the average
layperson would have to have men help them understand it, as
Roman Popery teaches.  I consider myself an average intelligent
person, with no exceptional qualities or education, so there is
not a Christian who can say they can't understand Scripture if
they really want to--at least not to me.  After Scripture, there
is only one other place I believe God helps us understand Him
better, and that is history.  Of course, the Bible itself is
history, or His story.  The one thing I look for in history
study is how that event relates to God.  What, in God's
providence, is He trying to teach us in historical accounts? 
Scripture says history is given to us as an ensample, or
example, of what to do--or what not to do (1 Cor.10.11).  All
historians will tell you the same.  For the most part however,
each generation believes they are different, and will make
something new under the sun, and will get away with what has
never been gotten away with in the past.  (Woefully, our country
is currently being governed by this type of thinking!)  Anyway,
I also use history as a study tool to get to answers..

        I will be mixing church history and Scripture as I see it has
affected doctrine in our age.  I will also point out that some
of the differences in covenant and dispensational theology are
not so far removed from each other in some camps, and how we may
be able to look at both in a different light.  

        There are two major eras in church history that are notable to
all Christians  beginning with the first reformation of the
church of the Apostolic era known as Christendom; next, the
second reformation era of Martin Luther.  I call the first the
'reformation' of the covenant church because it is much like the
second one.  The Pharisees, Sadducees, and other sects, had
totally changed the original intent of God in their religious
endeavors, much the same way as the Catholic Church had by the
second reformation.  The first is the formation of the New
Covenant church.  The second is the re-formation of the New
Covenant church.  By the way, 'new covenant' means 'new
testament,' and I have found both words (covenant and testament)
ultimately mean the revelation of the 'promise'.  In eternity,
God actively set to action all that He decreed in His providence
concerning His creation.  He allows us to know these things in
advance by promising us they will happen.

          Even in the covenant theology group, however, there is
division over what the definition of 'covenant' really means. On
the one hand, some believe it to be a pact entered into mutually
by God and men, dependent on conditions fulfilled by both
parties, and serving as the means by which the covenant people
acquire salvation. The other side believes it is a living
relationship of friendship between God and His people in Christ;
as 'unilaterally' established and maintained by God alone in
free and sovereign grace.  The latter is my belief. 

           Before I explain how I believe the Covenant relates
to Baptism I need to explain in a little more detail what I
believe concerning the Covenant.  First of all, I believe that
God's Covenant begins with the relationship between the three
Persons of the Holy Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.1  When God establishes His Covenant with us He takes us
into that relationship and makes us part of it!  II Peter 1:4
speaks of this when it says we are made partakers of the divine
nature.  From this I draw the conclusion that God does not need
us to be a covenant God, and when He makes a covenant with us,
it is but a revelation of something that He has even without us.
 His Covenant with us, therefore, is always a Covenant of grace
-- pure and undeserved favor.  This Covenant is often referred
to in Scripture as the 'everlasting covenant.'  Again, being
from eternity it is a covenant relationship in the Godhead first
of all, but it is also to eternity because God takes us into
that blessed Trinitarian relationship.  Further, since it is
everlasting it cannot end or become unnecessary, as an agreement
or contract would eventually become.  One other idea--if God's
Covenant is everlasting, then there must be only one Covenant. 
This Covenant is spoken of as unbreakable in many Scripture
passages.2  Of course,  Scripture also speaks of covenants
(plural) and old and new covenants, and here is where I believe
many believers have been divided unnecessarily in their
understanding.  When Scripture speaks of God remembering His
covenant3, giving His covenant4, declaring it5, and keeping it6,
in one dispensation or another, these expressions help us see
that when He establishes His covenant with someone or makes a
covenant with someone, He is not discarding the old and bringing
in an entirely new covenant, but only giving a new revelation of
His one Covenant of grace.  In that sense only should old and
new, or more than one covenant be understood.  Now it is
interesting to me that the word 'dispensation' means basically
the same thing.  My lexicon defines 'dispensation' as:  Actively
the administrative activity of the owner or the steward;
passively, that which is administered (Eng. economy; i.e. a
disposition or arrangement of things, a scheme or
dispensation--by God, of course, jt).  This fits with my
definition of Covenant as I see it used in Scripture. 
Throughout history God has arranged that His people receive the
promises He sets forth for them--He dispenses these promises in
different eras. Yet the promises are all closely linked and tie
in with His one grand Covenant!  That is so exciting to me!

        The Apostolic church began with a new revelation.  Ephesians 3
explains:  'How that by revelation he (God) made known unto me
(Paul) the mystery: (as I wrote afore in few words,  Whereby,
when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ)  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit;  That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of
the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the
gospel:  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of
the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his
power."   Here God is declaring to Paul that the Everlasting
Covenant God had made with Israel was now going to include the
Gentiles.  For Paul this had been a mystery, but was now clear.  

        Eph 1:9-10 explains the terms of this promise: "That in the
dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in
one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which
are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him
who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."  I
would say that is definitely a 'unilateral' statement. The new
dispensation does not change anything that God has promised, the
new revelation is He added the Gentiles to the promise.  

        Scripture always makes sure that this unilateral view of God is
presented before it begins to relate what man's participation
is.  It has to be this way, because when man is involved there
is every kind of antithesis to what God demands. Understanding
this process helps me to see why God speaks to us the way He
does.  God is always telling us that He is God, so therefore we
must do certain things.  We see this clearly in Deut.7.8-9, "But
because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath
which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you
out (of Egypt) with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the
house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.  Know
therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God,
which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and
keep his commandments to a thousand generations."  Notice first
that God declares himself faithful in His dealings with us. His
promises (Covenant) are always sure, and He keeps them.  It is
upon this knowledge that God tells man what he must do because
of it.  On the surface it sounds like a pact.  It sounds as
though God is making a deal with man--If you love Him and keep
His commandments He will keep covenant with you.  I don't see it
this way.  He always instigates the process by His love, and by
His faithfulness.  We on the other hand are always going astray,
and it is in this respect that Scripture speaks of us breaking
covenant with God.  Thus, God, because of His
covenant-friendship with us declares in Jeremiah 31, "But this
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
After those days, (I believe this to be the Apostolic age on)
saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and
write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall
be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for
they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest
of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and
I will remember their sin no more."  Thus God makes a Covenant
that overrides even man's sin and disobedience, and declares He
will love them even so, strengthening the Covenant that can't be
broken.  

        The era (or dispensation) of the new Covenant (or new
revelation) comes upon the entrance of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
The teachings wrapped in the old covenant symbolism are
fulfilled in Christ.  Hebrews 11 points to faith being the
factor that combines all of the covenants and dispensations
(why? because they were but revelations of the one--faith being
the result of grace.)  "They (forefathers) all died in faith,
not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off,
and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."  Even
though they did not live in the day of Christ, they were
included in the promise of the faith of Jesus Christ.  We, on
this side, look back at what has been accomplished, and embrace
Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith...God having
provided some better thing for us, that they without us should
not be made perfect.

        This is the atmosphere of the entrance of the first New
Covenant churches.  God teaches in all of the N.T. books this
line of reasoning--Christ came to fulfill God's promise
contained in the Covenant of grace. "And for this cause he is
the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for
the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament, they which are called might receive the promise of
eternal inheritance." (Heb.9:15)  All the symbols of Christ
within the ceremonial dispensation must be done away.  Now the
only symbols given to us are of Christ's death, resurrection,
and His return, in the sacraments of baptism and communion. 
Remember that everything the old symbolism pointed forward to,
the new symbolism points back to.

        However, man, as is his nature, denied that the symbols of
Christ as established in the New Testament were enough, and
began once again to add the doctrines of men.  Thus, eventually
the Roman Catholic church took over the Word of God and put
itself in place.  It didn't take long, a few hundred years, a
few changes here and there, each generation accepting the small
little differences--until finally the church no longer resembled
the church begun at Pentecost.  Even so,  God remained faithful,
and raised up men against the church of Rome, even within her
own walls.  Luther set out to go against the indulgences of the
church, and was thrown out. He formed his own denomination. 
Many followed him, and his teachings, and a new era began the
second Reformation.  Since they protested the Catholic errors,
they began to be called Protestants.  Many wanted to return to
the Apostolic church knowing that they were far from it.   So
they began once again from Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), and
slowly began re-forming what was established originally. 

        Some, as is witnessed in Calvin and others of like faith,
wanted insurance that the Protestant church would not fall back
into the same erroneous ways the Catholic church had so easily
slipped into, so he began to regulate worship to fit only what
God revealed in His Word as the standard to go by--forming what
is called the 'Regulative Principle.' Luther, and others did not
go this far, keeping a lot of the symbolism from the Catholic
traditions.  Paedobaptism, or what is known as Infant Baptism,
is one of the symbols many believe is a Catholic tradition; and
if Luther was the only one that taught this doctrine, I would
better understand how people come to this conclusion.  However,
there has never been a person more set against the 'traditions'
of the Catholic church than John Calvin.  His hatred for Popish
inventions is found in every writing he penned.  Since he
strongly believed, and taught, the 'Regulative Principle' (only
doing what Scripture warrants), he is a strong argument in favor
of Infant Baptism, for he taught it.  He didn't teach it as the
Catholic Church taught it though--his opinion of their way of
administering the Sacrament was that they 'forced magical
exorcisms upon the people.'  Calvin's teaching formed what is
now called the Presbyterian Church, but as the generations after
Calvin gradually slacked off  the 'Regulative Principle,' we see
a falling away of orthodox Presbyterianism.  There are still
several denominations left that are guided by this 'Regulative
Principle' and they, as Covenant believers, baptize their
infants in what I believe is the correct manner.

        Calvin, of course, is not the only reason I believe in
Paedobaptism.  He is not even the most important reason I
believe it, but as it fit in the era I was talking about, I went
ahead and mentioned it.  Actually, that era produced many highly
intelligent divines, and a wide variety of them, to put together
the documents and confessions that many of the churches adopted
to teach the main doctrines of Scripture.  The Westminster
Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort,
the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Scottish Confession of Faith,
is just to name a few of the most well known.  These confessions
have been used for hundreds of years.  The only catechisms that
differ in the area of baptism is the 1689 London Baptist
Confession & Keach's Catechism; this Confession has been used
since then by the Reformed Baptist7.  Also, Charles Spurgeon
himself put together a catechism based upon the Westminster
Catechism.  The only place that differs in these two catechisms
is in the Baptism section. He agreed with what Baptism is, but
not who it was to be administered to. 

        This is not to say that catechisms and confessions in
themselves prove anything concerning any particular doctrine,
but as I mentioned, I believe the people who were involved in
the production of these very important documents were the most
pious and learned of men, surpassing anything or anyone since. 
I only refer to these confessions as a source of information of
what men of that era thought and taught concerning doctrine.. In
church history those documents were used mostly in the
exposition of Scripture, and the standard to use to keep one
from straying from the 'Regulative Principle.'  In keeping with
my subject I will only add a small significant fact that a full
majority of the people of that era baptized their infants.

        When I read another man's belief concerning a doctrine, it is
usually very biased to the denomination          associated with. 
I always get the impression that he is leaning completely to the
historical beliefs of his church, and that is where he bases his
conclusion (this is called 'presupposition', and I have to admit
that I have to start somewhere also!).  Then often when these
men write about a differing view they either misrepresent, or at
least don't present all the facts, of the other side. Whenever I
disagree with a doctrine, I try to avoid doing that by reading
each side thoroughly so I might have in mind what the other
person truly believes and respectfully address the differences. 
I don't find that many do this.  I usually find instead, a very
unloving, disrespectful, and derogatory tone when the counter
side is being discussed.  For example,  I went to an article
written by a Baptist, Paul Jewett, to reveal to me the exact
differences that Baptists have with Paedobaptists.  I found him
obnoxious, running all the Protestant beliefs of Infant Baptism
together with the Catholic Church! (What an affront.)  I trudged
through it anyway, hoping I could catch a glimmer of
understanding, or agreement in any of it.  He mentioned that
Calvin taught that the seed of faith was in the covenant infant
by virtue of the promise (covenant).  Also that, officially,
Presbyterian and Reformed baptismal liturgies feature no other
sponsors than the parents of the child, who confess no other
faith than their own, promising they will so instruct the child
that hopefully he will confess Christ for himself when he shall
come to years of discretion. This was the closest thing he said
to what I believe, although I don't totally agree with Calvin as
Jewett presented it.  Jewett lumps this description together
with all the others, and concludes that the sacrament of infant
baptism is incomplete and must be consummated by some sort of
confirmation--a point most agree with, but I don't entirely.  He
does, however, admit a little later that Paedobaptists are
ambivalent, and that they admit their arguments are
insufficient, apart from the implications of covenant theology. 
 Then in his own words Jewett admits, "The theological
conception, sometimes called 'covenant theology,' which
under girds the Paedobaptist argument at this point, is too
grand, too challenging, too persistent to be ignored with
impunity.  The dogmatician who slights it despises his own
reputation.  This is perhaps to concede that the Baptists as a
whole have not been outstanding theologians.  The stream of
their rebuttal has run so thin at this juncture that only the
hollow eyes of predisposition could fail to see its inadequacy
and adjudge the counter arguments superior.  Though most
Baptists do not believe it, it is indeed true that the NT
fulfills the Old and that even the analogy between circumcision
and baptism is beyond cavil."  Then he goes on to do that very
caviling--where he becomes very weak in his rebuttal.  

        Jewett sites some verses that Paedobaptist feel could only be
associated with the covenant view such as 1 Cor.7:14 that refers
to the children of mixed marriages as 'holy,' (and in his words)
leaving the unbelieving parent only 'sanctified.' However, does
he explain what he thinks this verse does mean?  No.  He just
says to believe it the way it reads is 'uncollected.'  He calls
these 'whimsies' mild compared to the contradictions between
Paedobaptist and Paedocommunionist.  (If you do one--why not the
other? Actually, the breaking away of the 'Regulative Principle'
has brought on the Paedocommunion stance, and is a part of the
'current' covenant theology I don't totally agree with). Jewett
continues by asking why not communion if baptism is allowed in
children?  He knows the answer, and gave it--"Paedobaptist argue
that  there is a great difference between the two types of
ordinances, one is passive (baptism), and the other active
(communion), one is initiatory, the other not."  Jewett goes on
to say all these matters are irrelevant. He concludes his
refutation by saying that the Baptists, therefore, have not only
the advantage of better evidence for their practice, but that
practice is also compatible with covenant theology and
consistent within itself.  To this I agree.  I believe that the
two sides have pridefully built an imaginary gulf that should
not be there. However, it IS hard to hear that the conclusions I
have labored to come to are considered 'whimsies.'

        Now I come to the part of pointing out what my studies
revealed.  I will say up front that I have yet to read a full
discourse on Paedobaptism that pleases me.  I always find that
something has been left out; or, I feel uneasy about something
that has been added.  There are many books on both sides
concerning this controversial subject, and they often just
confuse the issue.  They are all based on presuppositions loaded
with Scripture to back that presupposition up.  Although I
believe everyone has a presuppositional base, I still believe
you can be led to the Truth by the Holy Spirit as you seriously
seek and study. The way that I arrived at my conclusion was by
asking myself questions and then seeking the answers within
Scripture.  My first question was:



What has changed from the O.T. to the New?  



1.  The Gentiles were to be included in the covenant.  

2.  Worship changed; though at first they continued going to the
Temple.

3.  The law became much more simple;  Love the Lord with all
your heart, and your neighbor--fulfill the law.

4.  The symbolism of such ceremonies as Passover, Circumcision,
etc., having been fulfilled, are dropped.  The two sacraments of
Baptism and Communion are established by Christ Himself (who, at
the initiation of the new symbols, was celebrating the old
symbolism, a beautiful picture of the Old bridging the New).



This list is short--I could go on.  As you read the New
Testament you begin to see that a lot of the O.T. has been
fulfilled in Christ and new symbols replace symbols from the
O.T., but, and this is an important factor in my argumentation,
the spiritual significance stays the same. The old symbolism
pointed to salvation, the new acknowledges that salvation is
come, they both signify salvation..  Now let's look at how they
stayed the same:



1.  There is only one mediator in the Bible--Jesus Christ.

2.  There is only one condition for salvation--Faith. (Gen.
15:6; Rom.4:3, Heb.11)

3.  One blessing--we will all be in the same place in eternity.

4.  God said in the Old that His covenant was everlasting.
(Gen.17:7)

     (Not the signs of the covenant--but the promise)

5.  The blessings of Abraham come upon the Gentiles through
Christ. (Gal.3:13,14)

6.  Those in Christ are the seed of Abraham. (Gal.3:29)

7   The church is not two separate organisms (the O.T. one, and
the N.T.                one) Rom.11:16-21--Christ broke down the
middle wall of partition and united the Jew and Gentile in
Himself. Also,  there aren't two trees (Israel and Gentile), but
we are grafted into the Root of Jesse--Jesus Christ.

        

     This list could go on also.  Believing Jews understood
nothing had really changed concerning God except the fulfillment
of prophecy concerning the Messiah, and only the adding of the
Gentiles and symbolism was a little different.  They understood
the symbol of baptism signified the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ.  They also understood the body and blood
of Christ symbolized in the bread and wine, as instituted by
Christ himself to mean what he said it did. They were steeped in
1500 years of symbolism!  In other words, symbolism was very
familiar to them, and it always signified the spiritual reality
from the beginning of time.  

        In the old dispensation circumcision was a 'token' or symbol of
God's everlasting covenant with Abraham, however, it did not do
anything but signify inclusion in God's covenant, only God could
circumcise the heart (Deut.30:6, Col 2:11-14), which is the
spiritual significance of circumcision. Also, Abraham was
reckoned faithful, and received the sign of circumcision  'a
seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had yet being
uncircumcised.' (Rom.4:11) His faith was the righteousness, not
the circumcision.  It is still God who will justify the
circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. 
This establishes the law.  Now this is meaty stuff. Knowing
this, under the old symbolism where does the eight-day-old fit
in?  Why did God call the Jewish men to include every male down
to the eight-day-old into this sign?  Gen. 17 is the only place
that can answer that question.  Though it does not explicitly
explain why start circumcising at eight days old, it does speak
implicitly of the solidarity of generations of God's people
through Abraham's 'seed' (not 'seeds' as in two--Israel and
Gentiles--but we are one in Christ, Ge.17:10,
19/Gal.3:29/Rom.9:7.)  

        First, God promised to 'multiply' him exceedingly, telling
Abraham that he would be a 'father' of many nations.  He would
be 'fruitful.'  Further, God would establish His covenant
between Himself and Abraham, and his 'seed' after him for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee. Then God tells Abraham, This is my covenant, which
ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every
man child among you shall be circumcised.  This is a 'token' of
the covenant.  

        In the N.T. we learn something new about circumcision that we
didn't clearly see in the words of the O.T., and that is the
significance that circumcision had on fulfilling the law.  If
you did not become circumcised you were said to be breaking the
law (or covenant).  I understand it was a requirement of the
law--but the Gospel changed that.  Circumcision is done away
because of Jesus Christ.  Gal. 5 teaches that in Jesus Christ
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but
faith which worketh by love, and also becoming a new creature.
(v.6, 15.) 

        The next question popped quickly into my head:   If
circumcision has been done away, then what is now the token of
the Everlasting Covenant?  Rom. 2 cleared it up for me.  The
symbol changes but remains completely spiritual.  Circumcision
profits only if you keep the law perfectly, but if you break the
law the circumcision is made uncircumcision (even if the
physical circumcision has taken place, God does not count it). 
On the other hand, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness
of the law (through Christ), he shall be counted for the O.T.
promises of the significance of circumcision. (Apply this line
of thought with Baptism and you begin to understand where I am
going).  Then we are told that he is a Jew, which is one
inwardly, not outwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,
in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of
men, but of God (again, only God can circumcise the heart). 
Taking man completely out of the picture God tells us who, and
by what means, man is made a partaker of His kingdom.  This
illustration of circumcision is important to me in this teaching
because God had to be talking to all who were circumcised, and
that had to include 8-day-old infants. So what if some of these
little circumcised babies turned out unbelievers?  Shall their
unbelief make the faith of God without effect? In other words,
shall the infant that has been circumcised, but turns out an
unbeliever make the circumcision of infants that are elect of
none effect? No! God is true, and knows his own!  The
unbeliever's circumcision becomes uncircumcision. The same would
apply to Baptism in covenant theology.

        Here it all is in a nutshell. One verse unilaterally ties it up
neatly:  "And you are complete in him (Christ), which is the
head of all principality and power: In whom also you are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, (now the
Covenant is fulfilled spiritually and remains everlasting), in
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ": (requirements physically obtained by
our covenant Head)--now, bridging over to the new--"Buried with
him in baptism8, wherein ye are risen with him through the faith
of the operation of God, who hath raised him (Christ) from the
dead" (Col.2:10.11).  It seems impossible to me that God would
use the example of circumcision in any of the doctrines He
taught us, and exclude any person included in that doctrine. It
seems equally impossible to me that a person cannot see that God
is bridging the symbols to tell us they are the same both in
significance and, by faith which--remember--has its operation in
God...Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:  but Christ
is all, and in all.  Again, this verse is figurative of the
reality behind the spiritual truth being taught.

        I wish that I could go on and on with the many examples that
there are concerning the Covenant of God, but in order that I
not stray from the subject, I will return to the immediate
issue.  I would interject here that not all covenant believers
are together on everything, just as Baptists have differing
views also.  For instance, I do not hold to 'dormant
regeneration,' meaning one may be born again with the new life
of Christ in early childhood but remain unconverted for many
years even though he lives under the sound preaching and
teaching of God's Word, the seed of regeneration lying inactive
in the heart of the person. No. I believe that God's elect begin
immediately being converted, and throughout their nurturing and
admonition in the Lord they grow in grace until such time as God
reveals this truth more fully to them..  

        I also reject 'presumptive regeneration' that holds that the
ground or basis of infant baptism is an assumption made by the
parents and by the church, that all the natural children of
believing parents are regenerated.  I believe only the elect are
regenerated.  Most of the covenant churches believe one or the
other of these two ways.  Again, I don't fall into the main
beliefs in this category, but seek to remain consistent..

        I believe regeneration is a work of God.  It is not a work of
man.  This regeneration is wrought in us "which are born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
of God" (Jo.1:13).  Further, "Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jo.3:3).  Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, all taught that Jesus said infants and children are such
that belong to the kingdom of heaven, and that they should not
be hindered from coming to him.  Their way of coming was that
they were 'brought' to Him.  He put his hands on them, and
blessed them.  My next obvious question would be what was the
purpose in doing that if they were unregenerate, unsaved,
heathen?  Well, the obvious answer is that they weren't
unregenerate, unsaved, heathen--they were covenant children as
much a part of Christ as the rest of the crowd that was there. 
Jesus was very displeased that His disciples tried to prevent
them from coming. (Mk.10:13,14.)  Further, how do you receive
the kingdom of God as a little infant? (Infant is used by Luke
in this account, 18:16,17.)  I submit the only way to receive
the kingdom of God whether infant or 80 years old is 'impossible
with men, but is possible only with God' (Lk.18:27).  The
weakness of that infant reflects the impossibility of it doing
anything for salvation, the same goes for adult man.  Maybe
Jesus was pointing that out.

        My next point closely follows the last.  I base all of my
beliefs in God's covenant to the 'elect.'  It is only to them
that the promises are given.  The elect are promised that God
will love them and their seed to a thousand generations.  Peter,
in talking to the house of Israel (Acts 2:36) calls them to
"repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off (Gentiles), even as many
as the Lord our God shall call." (v.39,40.)  Why did Peter 
include the children in the new promise, if the parents were not
to understand that the promises of the old covenant inclusion of
their children would not be changed in this new way of doing
things (repentance upon God's call), and the new symbol of it
(baptism)? This would have been the place to set the hearers
straight on things that had changed, otherwise, 1500 years of
covenant thinking would certainly continue to bring infants to
the symbolism of the spiritual reality.  Here is where we
clearly see Peter including children in the call.  Indeed, we
see instances in Scripture of babes all the way back to the womb
(and before the world began) having to do with God's kingdom. 
John the Baptist is probably believed to be an 'isolated
event,' (Luke 1:15--"...and he shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost, even from his mother's womb." See also Luke 1:44) but is
worthy of mention.  David and Jeremiah (Jere.1:5--"Before I
formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest
forth out of the womb I sanctified thee...) closely follow. 
Paul said himself that he was separated from his mother's womb,
and called by God's grace 'when it pleased God.' Why would Paul
need to begin with the womb in speaking of God's call? Paul's
reason is "to reveal his Son in me."  Again, at God's appointed
time Paul is given 'revelation' of the 'thing' God gave him
'before the world began' (Gal.1:15-16, 2 Tim.1:9.)  I see no
reason to deny God 'calls' many others in the same way,
especially in the households of believers.  

     Speaking of 'households' of believers we read that 'whole
households' were baptized.  This is frequently used by debaters
and I wanted to side-step the common uses, but as I was in the
area of households I thought I'd  present it one more time.  The
reason whole households were included is that the parent, or
head of the household, was the covenant head of the people
within that household.  Just as Noah was the covenant head of
his household, "when once the long-suffering of God waited in
the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.  The like figure,
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."
(1Pet.3:20,21.) (And, no, I do not believe that water baptism
saves!)  In this teaching I relate Noah and his family, to me
and my family, when it comes to baptism.  "By faith Noah, being
warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,
prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which
is by faith." (Heb. 11:7).  Through faith, I have also 'prepared
an ark' in the baptism of my children, and I consider them as
safe as Noah and his family were during the flood, this IS the
answer of a good conscience toward God.  

        Now, I won't leave here without mentioning that I know that one
of Noah's' sons was not one of God's elect.  Throughout Scripture
we are given examples of some children of the elect not being
God's people--Cain, Lamech, Esau, to name a few;  but they were
still included in the signs, and the godly upbringing, and the
blessings of the covenant.  Ham's temporal blessing is that he
was saved from the flood by being part of that covenant under
Noah, however that would not save him in the end.

        I must go one more place before I close.  This is the most
important aspect, and one that I believe very strongly about. 
In Ephesians, the great epistle concerning Christ's church, we
read that, "there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.  But unto every one of us is given
grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."  He then
proceeds to discuss the duties of those who have all of the
above. The called husbands and wives are exhorted how they
should reflect the church.  Then Paul turns to the called
children of the church and exhorts them to "obey your parents in
the Lord: for this is right."  I was struck by the words
'called' and 'in the Lord.'  How can unregenerate children be
said to be 'called' or 'in the Lord'?  And if they are not,
where is the ability to obey? Furthermore, at what age should
these children begin to obey? When they are old enough to
discern that they are 'in the Lord' and should obey?  No.  They
begin to obey right in their beginning, because as covenant
parents we must bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord.  As we follow that command they grow in 'the measure
of the gift of Christ'.  It has to be this way or else we are
left with unregenerate, unsaved, heathen, whom we are asking to
serve the Lord in obedience, when they have no ability at all to
do that!   To treat a child in a Christian home as though they
are unsaved until such time that they are older and understand
things better so they can make a decision for Christ, seems to
me to open the door for unnecessary doubt and confusion, and I
have come to believe is unbiblical.  

        First, they, having always heard the Word preached, having
prayed with their parents, praised God in singing, been read and
taught Scripture from infancy, yet they are all considered
unsaved?  It is no wonder that teenagers often reject their
parents training. While they were growing up they always felt
they were God's child.  But come to find out they aren't at all
because they have not gone to the front and prayed the sinner's
prayer.  Alas, they learn they have something they have to do in
order for that to become a reality.  Yes, they have to have an
'experience'.  They have to 'feel' God calling them.  They have
to make a 'decision'.  The sad thing is they may have always
experienced God, they may have always felt close to Him.  

        Another discrepancy in this logic is that if they are required
to have an 'experience' or 'decision' for Christ, and they
become shipwrecked by sin (and we are all capable of that), they
will feel as though they are an unbeliever--because they no
longer 'feel' that first love or 'experience'.  This is the very
teaching that has finally worked itself into the church and
eroded the comfort of believers.  Too many churches today
believe this error of falling away from faith. 

        This is not to say that I don't believe they should be
professing Christians; even coming forward at some time to
confess their salvation (Rom. 10:10).  All covenant churches do
this.  In most covenant churches it is at this time that the
children may partake of the Lord's Supper.  It is in the
teaching of the Lord's Supper that I do see conditional language
for the believer before they participate.9

         So, for the sake of the godly seed in my family, they are all
covenantally approached as elect.  This is no different than the
pastor or elder approaching the members of the church as elect,
even though there are hypocrites, or tares, in every
congregation.  This is also true in everyday life.  The farmer,
for instance, calls his field of ripening wheat and wild weeds,
"my wheat field," even if there are more weeds than wheat.  This
is his view of it.  This determines his approach to the field in
the fertilizing, cultivating, and harvesting it.  The weeds
don't determine his activity in the field, the wheat does. 
Neither does the farmer allow the presence of the weeds to make
him doubt that the wheat is truly wheat, and even to regard the
wheat as weeds, until the wheat proves differently.

        Finally, what does the Baptist tell a parent that has lost a
child?  I've never in my life heard, "I'm sorry but your son
didn't make it to the age of accountability so that he could
decide for Christ and be regenerated, so I'm afraid he is in
hell."  For a Baptist to say anything else, according to all the
other teachings concerning children in his church, would be
hypocritical.  What comfort is there in the death of our
children in any other teaching than that elect infants, dying in
infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit,
who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases? I doubt that
any Baptist would disagree with me on this.

        As proof I asked a Baptist pastor to define what he believes
concerning what happens to babies when they die. He told me what
he told the parents of an infant he did a funeral for only a
couple of weeks before my question.  He said he told those
parents that their infant was in heaven.  I asked him how those
parents were going to deal with scriptures that speak of us
being born in sin and coming forth from the womb speaking lies,
etc., and wouldn't  these also have to repent of their sin and
believe?  And how would these parents ever get away from that
age of accountability thing? He only shook his head sadly.  So
did I.  The comfort derived from God's covenant teaching is
beyond explanation.  Those parents might have been comforted
because a pastor told them their infant was in heaven, but they
would be faced with some doubt when coming to some portions of
Scripture, instead of being able to lean on the promises in
Scripture given to us and our children.  This is where the true
comfort should come.  

        Baptism is a sign and seal of real covenant fellowship with God
for believers and their children. It is a spiritual union with
Christ and thus of fellowship with God by the regenerating work
of the Holy Spirit to the elect of all ages.  "For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body..." (1 Cor.12:13).



Let's look at the points of agreement on both sides:

1.  Baptism is a sign or symbol of inclusion in the physical, as
well as spiritual, church of Christ.

2.  Prerequisites are belief and repentance.

3.  Belief and repentance are gifts of God, and are dispensed at
all different ages.

4.  God knows who are His.

5.  We don't know who are His; whether covenant infant or
believing baptized 80-year-old.

6.  If a baptized person falls back into perdition and remains
there--that person was not saved to begin with.                 
   (Heb.10:39)

7.  What is not of faith is sin.

        I strongly believe that infant baptism, as set forth in this
treatise, is warranted by Scripture; but I also believe that the
premise behind the 'believer's baptism' is also part of the true
doctrine, it just misses part of the church!  That greatly
saddens me.

         One of the things I think will be wonderful in heaven is that
we'll all come to such a fullness of knowledge of these things
that all sides will be fully ashamed they were so inadequate in
their understanding, and stubbornly so!  Knowing the full
answer, we will all truly be united in the bond of perfectness
that is Love--the most important thing we have been called to
obey while here on earth. (Col.3:14-15).

1 Proverbs 8:22-31

2 Judges 2:1, Ps.89:34, Jer.33:20, etc.

3 Lev.26:42, Luke 1:72

4 Num.25:12, Acts 7:8

5 Deut. 4:13

6 I Kings 8:23

7 Although, sadly, they agree that "infants dying in infancy are
regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh
when, and where, and how he pleaseth; so also are all elect
persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the
ministry of the Word." (Chap.10, Art.3; ref: John 3:3,5,6,8).  I
say 'sadly' because only in their infants death are we in
agreement!



8 Matthew 3:13-17, 1 Cor.1:30, 2 Cor. 5:21

9 1 Cor.11: 28-30