The Subjects of Baptism

by Grover Gunn
pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church
Jackson, Tennessee

The Difficulty of the Question

The question of the proper subjects for baptism is not one that can be answered with a simple proof text. There is nothing in the Bible which speaks directly to the issue. There is no example in the Bible of a believer's child below the age of discretion who was baptized; nor is there an example of one whose baptism was delayed until he could profess his faith himself. There are passages which speak to this issue indirectly. These passages do not settle the debate because they are interpreted on the basis of broader theological commitments: the relationship of the old covenant to the new covenant, the nature of the church, the nature of baptism, and one's theology of children.

Of course, some say the issue is easy. First, they say, the Bible says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). So that settles the matter regarding baptizing those too young to believe. Secondly, if there is no direct command or example in Scripture regarding the baptism of the infant children of believers, then there is no Scriptural basis for doing so.

Well, the matter really isn't that simple. Regarding Mark 16:16, the context of this verse is the missionary evangelism of adults. The Bible also says "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). That does not mean that infants should not be fed. The adult context must be taken into account. Regarding the lack of a direct command, the common and appropriate response is a challenge to defend admitting women to the Lord's Table using the same criteria.

Perhaps a more interesting challenge is one found in a letter from Anabaptist Conrad Grebel to Thomas Muntzer on September 5, 1524, regarding singing in worship:

Paul most clearly forbids singing in the fifth chapter to the Ephesians and in the third chapter of his letter to the Colossians. He does this by saying that people should talk and instruct one another with psalms and spiritual songs; and if one wants to sing, one should sing and give thanks in one's heart. ... what we are not taught with clear sayings and examples should be as forbidden to us as if it were written: "Do not do that; do not sing."1
The referenced passage does say, "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."

Some even more challenging examples are found in the writings of the more famous Baptist John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress. John Bunyan held that baptism with water has no place in a Christian worship service:

The act of water baptism hath not place in church worship, neither in whole nor in part; wherefore pressing it upon the church is to no purpose at all.2
For albeit that baptism be given by Christ our Lord to the church, yet not for them to worship him by as a church. Shew me what church-ordinance it is; and when, or where the church, as a church, is to practise it, as one of those laws and appointments that he hath commanded his church to shew to him her obedience by. Again, That submitting to water baptism, is a sign or note, that was ever required by any of the primitive churches, of him that would hold fellowship with them; or that it infuseth such grace and holiness into those that submit thereto, as to capacitate them for such a privilege; or that they did acknowledge it a sign thereof, I find not in all the Bible.3
And as for the worship that Christ hath instituted in his church, as a church, I say, (and you also have said it) baptism is none of the forms thereof, none of the ordinances thereof, none of the laws thereof; for baptism is, as to the practice of it, that which is without the church, without the house of God.4
John Bunyan is correct that there is in the New Testament no specific example of a baptism with water administered during a Sunday worship service, nor is there any direct command to administer baptism as a part of corporate worship on the Lord's Day. One has such commands and examples for the Lord's Supper, but not for baptism with water. Accordingly, John Bunyan taught, "The Lord's supper, not baptism, is for the church, as a church ..."5

John Bunyan also taught that baptism with water is not a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord's Supper. He pointed out that there is no verse which specifically states that someone not baptized with water must, for that reason alone, be excluded from the Lord's table:

And now I am fallen upon it, let me a little enlarge: this church, according to the then instituted worship of God, had circumcision for their entering ordinance (Gen 17:13,14), without which it was unlawful to receive any into fellowship with them: yea, he that without it was received, was to be cut off, and cast out again. Further, as to the passover, the uncircumcised were utterly forbidden to eat it (Exo 12:48). Now if our brethren had as express prohibition to justify their groundless opinion, as here is to exclude the uncircumcised from the communion of the church and the passover: I say, if they could find it written, 'No unbaptized person shall enter, no unbaptized person shall eat of the supper'; what a noise would they make about it?6
He also compared some of his opponents' arguments to arguments used by paedobaptists to defend infant baptism:
Object. But no uncircumcised person was to eat the passover (Exo 12). And doth not the Lord as well require the sign of baptism now, as of circumcision then? and is there not like reason for it?

Answ. The Lord, in the Old Testament, expressly commanded no uncircumcised person should eat the passover (Exo 12:48; Eze 44:9), that no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised in flesh, should enter into his sanctuary. And had the Lord commanded, that no unbaptized person should enter into his churches, it had been clear. And no doubt, Christ was as faithful as a son in all his house, as Moses was as a servant; and although there had been little reason, if the Lord had commanded it so to be, yet in God's worship we must not make the likeness of any thing in our reason, but the will of God, the ground of duty; for upon such a foundation some would build the baptizing of infants, because it would be like unto circumcision, and so break the second commandment, in making the likeness of things of their own contrivance, of force with institutions in the worship of God.7

I believe these examples demonstrate the impracticality of arguing with any consistency that one must limit religious practice to only that for which there is a direct command or example in the New Testament. A better approach is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.8
Using this method, I believe I can demonstrate the Biblical obligation of believers to bring their children under the age of discretion to the church for baptism. I believe this obligation can be demonstrated with as much certainty as can the believer's Biblical obligation to worship on Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

The Old Testament Theology of Children

Before we look at the New Testament passages which speak to infant baptism indirectly, we will look at the Old Testament theology of children. In Old Testament Israel, the children of believers were distinguished from the children of the world. The children of the covenant community were nurtured in the law of God (Deuteronomy 6:7) while the children of the world were indoctrinated in the principles of paganism (Jeremiah 7:18); but the issue went beyond that. The children of the world were strangers to the covenants of promise (Ephesians 2:11-12), while Old Testament believers could claim the promise of the Abrahamic covenant that God would be not only their God but also the God of their children (Genesis 17:7). On the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, the male children received the sacrament of circumcision. Circumcision was not merely a sign of national citizenship. It was the sign and seal of the righteousness which God imputes to those who believe in Christ (Romans 4:11). Abraham was circumcised after he believed, and God commanded Abraham to circumcise his sons before they believed. Those circumcised in infancy were not circumcised again after coming to faith. Circumcision symbolized both cleansing from sin and the bestowal of a new heart.9 In Israel, even nursing infants were regarded as part of the religious assembly and members of the kingdom of God.10

As the sacrament that made one a part of the visible church, circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to New Testament baptism. The circumcision of the child born in Israel was household circumcision. There was also a provision for proselyte circumcision or believer's circumcision whereby the converted pagan could become a member of Israel (Exodus 12:48). The children of the covenant were received into the church on the basis of God's covenant promise, and the pagan was received on the basis of his profession of faith. Abraham was the spiritual father of both those who were members of the covenant community through proselyte circumcision and those who were members through household circumcision (Romans 4:11-12).

Those who were members of Old Testament Israel were not necessarily God's elect. Normally the child nurtured in the faith would confirm his inclusion in the covenant community through a life of obedience, but a child could grow up to rebel against God. Those who joined God's people as adult proselytes could do the same. Such covenant breakers were to be cut off from the people. The prime example of such was Esau who despised his birthright and sold his inheritance for a portion of pottage.

The Old Testament theology of children is illustrated for us by the Apostle Paul in Romans 11 under the figure of the olive tree. There are natural branches, the children of the church who are born with a special interest in God's covenant promise and as members of His church. There are the grafted on branches, adult believers who are proselytes from paganism to the worship of the living and true God. And there are pruned off branches, members of the church who apostatize and are cut off from the covenant people.

Continuity and Discontinuity

There is a continuity and discontinuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. In Galatians 4:1-7, Paul compares this relationship to that between the childhood and adulthood of the same person. There is in such a metaphor both the continuity of identity and the discontinuity of maturation. We see the continuity of identity in that Old Testament Israel is the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), and the New Testament Church is Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29), God's holy nation (1 Peter 2:9), and the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).

In the discontinuity of maturation, baptism replaces circumcision as the sacrament of initiation, the sign of inclusion in the covenant community. The close relationship between circumcision and baptism is demonstrated in Colossians 2:11-12, where spiritual baptism is said to effect spiritual circumcision in the Christian:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The new covenant seed of Abraham are those who have been baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27-29), and they are called "the circumcision" (Philippians 3:3; cf. Romans 2:29).

Some of the advances that came with covenantal adulthood were

Consistent with the advances of the new covenant, a significant covenant privilege was extended to women. Under the old covenant, only men received the initiatory sacramental sign of inclusion, which was circumcision. Under the new covenant, both men and women in the church receive the sacrament of inclusion, which is baptism. The question before us is whether this privilege is retained by the children of the covenant under the new covenant.

Insight from the Gospels

Does Christ in the Gospels give any hint about the development of the Biblical theology of children under the new covenant? Negatively Christ never gave any indication that the new covenant theology of children would be less gracious than that of the old covenant. It seems that our Lord would have told His disciples if He had planned to reverse these age old and precious privileges of grace. Positively, we have the evidence provided by Christ's blessing of the little children. These children, who were some of the children of the church of that day, did not come to Christ through a rational choice of their own but were brought to Christ by their parents for His blessing. By comparing the three accounts of this event, we know that our Lord embraced, laid his hands on, blessed and prayed for these children, and stated that of such is the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).

The same word translated "of such" in all three synoptic accounts of Christ's blessing the children is also found in Acts 22:22 where the Jewish mob said concerning the apostle Paul, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!" Was the mob referring only to people such as Paul, or were they referring to Paul as well as all like him? Obviously the word included Paul. And when Jesus said regarding the covenant children brought to him, "Of such is the kingdom of God," He wasn't referring only to adults with child-like faith. He was referring to the covenant children as well.

From Luke's account (18:15), we know that some of these children were babes in arm who would have had no understanding of Christ's words of blessing. Christ here confirmed the principle of the Abrahamic covenant that there is a sense in which the kingdom of God belongs to the children of believers even before they are old enough to rationally exercise faith. And the involvement of such children in a religious exercise was still considered meaningful and good even though the children could not then comprehend what was happening.

If our Lord had wished to prepare His disciples for a coming day in which this principle would have been reversed, this was certainly a logical time to do it. Instead our Lord here gave evidence that the children of believers would continue to be members of God's kingdom under the new covenant.

A friend recently told me that one reason he rejects infant baptism is because water baptism, unlike circumcision, leaves no lasting physical mark for the recepient to see years later. Our Lord did not allow that consideration to stop His laying hands upon certain infants. Our Lord's own example indicates that a ritual's failure to leave a permanent physical mark upon an infant is not an invalidating deficiency.

Insight from the Day of Pentecost

As we examine the day of Pentecost, the birthday of the new covenant church, we need to look for any hint as to the nature of the new covenant church. Is the church still a covenant community whose administration can be pictured by the Romans 11 olive tree? Or has it evolved into a regenerate only fellowship with no place for either natural branches which are on the tree from birth or fruitless branches which will one day be cut off? We find our hint at the climax of Peter's sermon on Pentecost, when he made the following statement:

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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."
In this statement, Peter referred to both water baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit in new covenant fullness. The gift of the Holy Spirit in new covenant fullness is promised to God's covenant people in prophecy (Ezekiel 36:27). Peter said that this promise belonged to those whom he was then addressing. As Jews, they were then still members of God's covenant community. They must, however, turn to Christ to receive the promised gift. Those Jews who did believe in Jesus as the Messiah were to remain members of the covenant people, and the promises of the new covenant were to be realized in their lives. Those Jews who rejected Christ were soon to be cut off from the covenant people (Romans 11:21). In accordance with the theology of children which went back to Abraham and in fulfillment of the prophesy of Isaiah 44:3: "I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring," Peter said that the promise of the new covenant belonged not only to those he addressed but also to their children. Peter then stated the Old Testament proselyte principle: the promise is also to those afar off, as many as the Lord will call. In the Old Testament, adult believers from pagan backgrounds were circumcised and became a part of old covenant Israel. So in the New Testament, believing adult pagans were baptized and became members of the new covenant Israel. As it says in Ephesians 2:13 concerning pagan converts to Christianity: "Now in Christ Jesus you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (cf. Isaiah 57:19). Even if Peter's language is not familiar to us, it was familiar to Peter's audience who were familiar with the principles of household circumcision and proselyte circumcision. On the day of Pentecost, we see the introduction of water baptism as the sign of inclusion in the new covenant community. We do not see the abandonment of the administration of the covenant in terms of the promise, "I will be your God and the God of your seed."

Insight from Household Baptisms

As we get into the book of Acts, we come to the household baptisms: Cornelius (Acts 10:47,48; 11:17), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33,34), and Crispus (Acts 18:8 & 1 Corinthians 1:14). Based on 1 Corinthians 1:16, we can add the household of Stephanos to the list. We know that some who were baptized during this period had no household: the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul and perhaps also the Samaritan sorceror Simon. When one considers the small number of representative baptismal narratives there are in the book of Acts, it is amazing how many of them are household baptisms. Our position is that these household baptisms are analogous in principle to the household circumcisions of the old covenant.

Under the old covenant, God worked not merely in individual lives but also through families. God invited Noah and his household into the ark (Genesis 7:1). God worked with Abraham and his household (Genesis 18:19). God used Joseph to save Jacob and his household (Genesis 47:12). God commanded a Passover lamb for each household in Israel (Exodus 12:3) with its blood to be applied to the doorposts of their house. Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). Under the new covenant, God still works through families or households, as is evidenced by the household baptisms.

A prominent example of a household baptism is that of the family of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16. In Acts 16:31, Paul the Apostle stated: "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -- you and your household." When Paul said that to the jailer, he was restating in terms of the new covenant the age old promise that God had given to Abraham: "I will be your God and the God of your children." When the jailer believed, Paul baptized the entire household. This passage does not specifically say that this household contained any children too young to have a profession of faith, nor does it deny that specific possibility. Regardless, the passage still points toward a substantial continuation of the theology of children rooted in the Abrahamic covenant as opposed to a more individualistic administration of the covenant. In verse 34 where it says that the jailer "rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God," the verb "having believed" is masculine singular, referring directly only to the jailer. If the text had said that all the jailer's household believed (plural) and were baptized, the nuance would be toward a new individualism in the age of the new covenant. Instead the text says that the jailer believed (singular) and all his house identified with him in his belief and rejoiced with him. That sounds more in line with Joshua's "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Similarly, Crispus believed (singular) with all his household (Acts 18:8).

We believe the baptism of households in the New Testament implies that the infant children of believers should be baptized. We come to this conclusion the same way we come to the conclusion that women should be admitted to the Lord's Supper. There is no command in Scripture to admit women to the Lord's Supper, nor any specific example. Only men were present at the institution of the Lord's Supper. The statements on breaking bread in Acts 2:42 and 46 give no insight on this question. If anything, the context in early Acts puts a stress on the adult male. In Acts one when a replacement for Judas Iscariot was chosen, Peter addressed only the "men and brethren" even though women were present (Acts 1:14,16). Those to whom Peter preached on Pentecost are called "devout men," "men of Judea," "men of Israel," and "men and brethren" (Acts 2:5,14,22,29). There is also no specific mention of a woman among those who broke bread at Troas (Acts 20:7-12). The two who are specifically mentioned, Paul and Eutychus, were both males. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 also gives no specific guidance. The Greek translated "he who eats and drinks" in verse 29 uses masculine participles. Thus we have no specific command or example regarding admitting women to the Lord's Table. Yet we believe we should do so because of the teaching in Scripture on the spiritual status of women under the new covenant. We deduce from this teaching on women in the church that when a church partakes of the Lord's Supper, any woman who is a member in good standing of that church should be allowed to partake. There is also no specific command or example regarding baptizing the infant children of believers. Yet we believe we should do so because of the teaching in Scripture on the spiritual status of covenant children. We deduce from this teaching on covenant children that when a household is baptized, any infant who is a member of that household should be baptized.

Insight from Paul's Epistles
Ephesians 1:1;6:1

In his epistles, Paul the Apostle categorized the children of believers as members of the visible church with no qualifying comments (Ephesians 1:1;6:1).

1 Corinthians 7:14

Another verse in Paul's epistles that relates to this issue is 1 Corinthians 7:14, where it says that the child of a believer is holy. There were apparently some married couples in the Corinthian church where one spouse had become a Christian and the other had remained in paganism. Some of these Christians in this situation feared that marriage to an unbeliever somehow defiled them spiritually. After all, under the old covenant, defilement, not holiness, was contagious (Haggai 2:10-14). Paul's response to the query is that if the unbeliever is willing to stay married to the Christian, allowing the Christian to live true to Christ, then the Christian should stay in the marriage. Paul then defends his response by stating that rather than the unbelieving spouse defiling the believing spouse, the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse. The holiness of the Christian spouse decisively affects the unbelieving spouse rather than vice versa. It influences his life style. It exposes him to divine blessings. It confronts him with the gospel. This is consistent with the prophecy that the Messianic age would be a time when holiness would aggressively spread (Zechariah 14:20-21).

Paul then gives the proof for this assessment of the situation. The holiness of the unbelieving spouse is in question because he is not a Christian. Paul needs some unquestionable fact to serve as his starting point for an argument for his evaluation and counsel. He finds that starting point in the spiritual status of the children of the religiously diverse couple. Paul points out that the children are holy. This is Paul's foundational given. This is something everyone knows and everyone accepts. This is the undisputed fact upon which he builds his argument for maintaining the marriage. If the children are holy in some sense, then this proves that the holiness of the believing spouse predominates over the defilement of the unbelieving spouse.

Now this raises the question as to how this fact was a settled point on which to build his case. The answer is obvious if the covenant children were already baptized members of the church. The children would be holy in the sense that they are members not of the pagan world but of God's covenant community. They are set apart in that the promises of the covenant belong to them as a birthright and are theirs to claim in faith.

The common Baptist interpretation of this verse is that the verse is saying that such children are not illegitimate. How could this be a foundation for Paul's argument that the Christian spouse's holiness overcomes the pagan spouse's defilement and not vice versa? When two pagans are married, their children are legitimate.

Romans 11:16-24

I have already mentioned Paul's use of the olive tree metaphor in Romans 11. This metaphor summarizes the old covenant administration of the covenant. The passage makes clear that the principle of cutting off branches continues into the new covenant administration of the covenant. The Presbyterian position is that the children of believers continue in this age to be natural branches on the olive tree representing God's covenant people. They are not in this age branches on the wild olive tree of paganism until they are grafted in by a profession of faith and believer's baptism.

Insight from Metaphors for the Church

Old covenant Israel was called God's flock. This corresponded well with the Old Testament theology of children in that a lamb becomes a member of the flock upon birth. The new covenant people of God are also referred to as a flock (John 10:16; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:3). Are the lambs no longer a part of the flock? If not, then why do we read in prophecy that the Messianic Good Shepherd "will feed His flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young" (Isaiah 40:11)? Similarly, the old covenant people of God are called God's holy nation (Exodus 19:6). A child becomes a citizen of the nation into which he is born. The new covenant people of God are also called a nation (1 Peter 2:9; cf. Ephesians 2:12,19). God's people are also called a household or family in both the old and new testaments (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19). Again, children become members of a family at birth. If the new covenant's theology of children is substantially different on this point from that of the old covenant, it seems strange that these old covenant metaphors for God's people are applied to God's new covenant people.

Some Baptists respond with an argument based on the etymology of the Greek word translated church, ekklesia. Ekklesia is a compound of the Greek preposition ek, which means "out of," and a derivative of the Greek verb kaleo, which means "to call." Thus the church consists of those called out from the world, and this meaning allegedly implies a regenerate only fellowship. The problem with this argument is that usage is a more accurate indication of word's meaning than is etymology. The New Testament uses the word ekklesia to refer to the people of Israel in the wilderness where they received the law at Mt. Sinai (Acts 7:38). The first appearances of the word ekklesia in the Septuagint refer to the people of Israel assembled at Mt. Sinai to receive the law (Deuteronomy 4:10; 9:10; 18:16). The assembly (ekklesia) is here the people (Deuteronomy 4:10; Exodus 19:17), and the people is a concept which includes the children. Children were definitely at times a part of the assembly of Israel:

There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the congregation (LXX: ekklesia) of Israel, with the women, the little ones, and the strangers who were living among them.
Joshua 8:35

Gather the people, sanctify the congregation (LXX: ekklesia), assemble the elders, gather the children and nursing babes; let the bridegroom go out from his chamber, and the bride from her dressing room.
Joel 2:16
The use of the word ekklesia to refer to the new covenant people of God is therefore no proof that the new covenant people are, unlike old covenant Israel, a regenerate only fellowship.

Insight from the Early Jewish Church

The book of James gives some insight into how Jewish the early church was. In the book of James, the local church is called both a synagogue (James 2:2 in Greek) and a church (James 5:14). Before these early Jewish Christians joined the church, they viewed their children as a part of the covenant community. Would they have accepted without any controversy their children's expulsion from the covenant community when they joined the Christian "synagogue"? Many of them, perhaps up to the time of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, continued to circumcise their infants even after becoming Christians (Acts 21:20-21). It would be strange indeed for these early Jewish Christians to continue to circumcise their infants as a Jewish custom and also at the same time to be of the opinion that their infants were no longer a part of God's covenant people under the new covenant.

Some Baptists at this point counter with a question about the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The issue before the council was the contention of certain Jews in the early church that believing Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1). The Baptist question is, If water baptism really is the new covenant replacement for circumcision, then why did the council say nothing about water baptism? Why did the council not simply point out that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised because they are already baptized? Since the council did not do this, then there must not be this close relationship between circumcision and baptism which Presbyterians claim as a grounds for infant baptism. This Baptist argument is a rather tenuous argument from silence, and I believe there is a simple answer. Baptism and circumcision do have much in common, but water baptism does not make one a practicing Jew. This party of the circumcision within the early Jewish church wanted Gentile Christians to be circumcised as a prelude to their becoming practicing Jews as defined by the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). For this reason, this party viewed water baptism as not enough. Therefore pointing out that the Gentile Christians had been baptized would not have satisfied them. The question was whether, under the new covenant, believing Gentiles could be a part of God's covenant people while remaining uncircumcised Gentiles. The clinching argument at the council was that the Old Testament prophets had foreseen that Gentiles as Gentiles would be a part of God's people under the new covenant. Baptism had no direct relevance to the fundamental issue of contention at the Jerusalem Council.

Insight from the Great Commission

The Great Commission is also helpful: "make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19). Is this verse a command to produce individual disciples of Christ from among all the nations of the earth? The English could be interpreted that way, but not the original Greek. The original Greek says "disciple all the nations (ethnos)." A nation is a family of sorts.11 Discipling nations involves both individuals and a corporate entity. The Great Commission is not stated in radically individualistic terms. God is still working not only through individuals but also through the corporate entity, the nation and the family.

Insight from Old Testament Prophecies of Church Age

There are prophecies in the Old Testament about the age of the new covenant. Do these point toward a new individualism or to a continuation of the substance of the old covenant theology of children? Here are some of these prophecies about the new covenant with the parts relevant to this question emphasized:

Deuteronomy 30:6
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 32:38-40
They shall be My people, and I will be their God; then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Ezekiel 37:24-26
David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

But what about Jeremiah 31:33-34:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.
Is this a prophecy of a church were everyone knows the Lord in the sense of being regenerate? In such a church, there would be no place for the children of the covenant until they had professed faith as credible evidence of their regeneration. Perhaps we can better understand this clause about all knowing the Lord if we will first examine the clause, "No more shall every man teach his neighbor." This passage finds a significant fulfillment in the new testament church (1 John 2:20,27) but not an absolute fulfillment (Ephesians 4:11-13; Hebrews 5:12). There is a significant fulfillment in this age, but the perfect fulfillment will be in the age to come. In like manner, the prophecy about everyone's knowing the Lord will find a significant fulfillment in this age. In the age of the outpoured Holy Spirit, there is more genuine heart knowledge of God. However, this prophecy will find a perfect fulfillment, with the covenant community being totally synonymous with God's elect, only in eternity when "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). In this age, the Good Shepherd is known by His true sheep (John 10:13). Yet one should not infer from this general principle that the youngest lambs have been excluded from the flock, or that all the sheep are inwardly what they profess to be outwardly.

Insight from Apostasy Passages

This view is further confirmed by the New Testament's teachings on apostasy. An apostate is one who abandons the church in unbelief. By leaving, he demonstrates that he was never a part of the church in regard to his true spiritual condition (1 John 2:19). And yet he was temporarily a part of the covenant people from the human perspective. For example, in Romans 11, we learn about the natural branches on the olive tree of Israel which were broken off due to unbelief. These branches were on the olive tree; they represent people who outwardly were a part of God's covenant people at some point in time. Paul then goes on to warn the grafted in Gentiles that the same can happen to them:

Romans 11:19-22
You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

We find a similar warning in John 15, where Jesus uses the figure of the grapevine:

John 15:2a,6
Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; ... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
The branch is in Christ in the sense of being outwardly a member of God's covenant community. Yet the branch does not bear fruit and is taken away to judgment.

Hebrews, the book with the most extensive discussion of the Jeremiah 31 new covenant prophecy, is also the book with the most passages on apostasy in the age of the new covenant (Hebrews 2:1-4; 3:12-4:11; 6:4-6; 10:26-29). If the visible church on earth, the covenant people in this age, are all regenerate and only regenerate, then apostasy such as we read about in Hebrews would not be possible.

I believe there is also insight on this issue from Peter's message at Pentecost. Peter's message was not, Believe and the promise will be given to you. The message was, Believe and don't be cut off from the covenant in judgment. Peter was preaching to Jews, the old covenant people of the covenant. He told them that the new covenant promise of the outpoured Holy Spirit belonged to them as the covenant people. Then he exhorted them, "Be saved from this perverse generation"; i.e., don't be cut off from the covenant through God's judgment upon those who have rejected His Messiah (cf. Deut. 18:17-19). Some of these Jews who heard Peter's message may have been previously regenerated through the Holy Spirit's use of the gospel as revealed in the Old Testament. This was their first exposure to the gospel in its new covenant clarity. Such people would come to the Messianic Light when exposed to it (John 3:21). Such people would recognize the voice of the Messianic Good Shepherd when they first heard it and then follow Him in gospel obedience (John 10:4). The Holy Spirit may have regenerated some of these people for the first time through Peter's presentation of the gospel in new covenant clarity. The implication of the passage is not that the Jews who submitted to the Messiah through belief and new covenant baptism would be grafted into the covenant. The implication is that those who didn't believe would be cut off from the covenant in judgment. To use the language of Paul, the gospel in new covenant clarity was spoken first to the Jews, and those who rejected it thereby judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life (Acts 13:46). By the time Paul wrote Romans 11, the unbelieving Jews were no longer branches on the tree in danger of being cut off through unbelief. They were by then cut off branches. The message to them would no longer be that the promise belonged to them. The message would be that they needed to believe in Jesus so that they could be grafted again into the covenant people to whom the promises were given (Romans 11:23). The point here is that on the day of Pentecost, the birthday of the new covenant church, Peter was thinking and talking in terms of an administration of the covenant where not everyone in the covenant was necessarily regenerate or one of God's elect.

I see a parallel between Peter's Pentecostal call for his Jewish listeners to be saved from that perverse generation, to the two angels' effort to save Lot's household from the destruction of Sodom. The warning message was to Lot and to his household (Genesis 19:12-13). Yet Lot's sons-in-law took the whole matter as a joke, and his wife looked back upon the city with longing eyes (Genesis 19:14,26). By their actions and attitudes, they judged themselves unworthy of deliverance. The fact that salvation was offered to them in a special way because they were part of Lot's household did not guarantee their salvation. If Lot's sons-in-law had heeded the warning, I am sure they would have been expected to bring their young children with them. I believe these same basic principles were in operation on the Day of Pentecost and thereafter.

Covenantal Thinking

God has given covenant promises regarding the children of believers: "I will be the God of your children", "I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring", "You will be saved, you and your household." At the same time, God has warned His covenant people against the dangers of apostasy. To understand these promises and warnings, one has to learn to think covenantally.

The covenant of grace as it applies to the elect based on God's secret will is unconditional. Yet the covenant of grace as it applies to the covenant people in history is administered in terms of conditions based on God's revealed will. The promises which God gives to His covenant people are spiritually and fully realized only by those with genuine faith, a faith which works through love (Gal. 5:6), a faith which bears the fruit of obedience (James 2). Except for the exceptional case of the elect infant who dies in infancy, these promises are fulfilled only in the context of gospel obedience. Yet this salvation conditioned on gospel obedience is all of grace because it is the grace of regeneration which makes the faith not only possible but inevitable. God makes conditions and then provides for their fulfillment in the lives of His elect as an expression of unconditional grace. Those who are not God's elect but who are a part of the covenant people in history do not meet the condition of gospel obedience in spite of all the outward benefits of the covenant. This is their fault and not God's.

God has given covenant promises regarding our children. We should be grateful for them. We should regard them as sincere, as expressions of mercy and grace. These promises should be a motivation to invest in the spiritual upbringing of our children after the example of Abraham (Genesis 18:19). God has been sincerely and genuinely gracious to our children in a way not experienced by children raised outside the household of faith. The fact that a natural branch can be cut off does not make these promises worthless. The fact that a wild olive branch can be grafted in does not make these promises meaningless. To paraphrase Paul, "What advantage has the Christian, or what is the profit of infant baptism? Much in every way!" (cf. Romans 3:1,2).

What if our children grow up and apostatize? Again, to paraphrase the language of Paul, "For what if some do not believe? Does their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar" (cf. Romans 3:4).

Consider again the warning that was given to Lot's household in Sodom. The sons-in-law did not heed it. Should we regard the warning as sincere, genuine and merciful, and blame the sons-in-law for not heeding it? Or should we reason that the only purpose in the warning was to fatten the pig for the slaughter? God gave the warning, but God also chose not to give them ears to hear it. The warning only served to increase their accountability. Their greater punishment brings greater glory to God's justice. Therefore, the warning was not a sincere warning but a deliberate curse. That is the logic of hyper-Calvinism. What the hyper-Calvinist does is use apparently logical implications of God's secret will to negate some of the implications of God's revealed will which are taught in Scripture. The Calvinist accepts the full implications of both God's secret will and God's revealed will as taught in Scirpture, and accepts that there is a degree of mystery in their relationship. In regard to the example above, the Calvinist regards the warning as sincere and merciful, as a privilege. The blame is all upon the sons-in-law, and rightfully so.

To think covenantally is

  1. to view God's covenant promises regarding our children as sincere, merciful and genuine;
  2. to seek to fulfill the obligations of the covenant, which are faith, repentance and obedience, and to encourage our children to do the same;
  3. to recognize our own and our children's depravity and to look to Christ for the grace both we and they need to fulfill the obligations of the covenant;
  4. to give Christ all the praise when we and our children fulfill the obligations of the covenant;
  5. to give Christ none of the blame when we or our children fail to fulfill the obligations of the covenant.

The Validity of Baptisms

A Baptist response to all of this is that the non-regenerate members of the church are not really members at all. Their baptism is a mere washing with water with no sacramental significance. The sacraments are not valid apart from faith. Baptism is primarily a visual profession of faith, and therefore it is meaningless apart from the faith professed.

This view implies that we can never know in this life who the members of the visible church really are. The members are either members inwardly as well as outwardly, or they are not members at all in any sense. If this ecclesiology is correct, then when a visible church has a congregational meeting to vote on a matter, how can anyone other than God know which of the votes are valid? Counting the ballots in such a context seems a bit presumptuous to me. This view of baptism appears to demand a bit of ecclesiastical agnosticism.

I agree that baptism is not an effective means of grace apart from faith, but invalid? Such a view of baptism seems Arminian to me. Is it not saying that God's sacraments are dependent upon the human will for their validity? I think instead that the validity of the sacraments is analogous to the validity of the preached Word. The gospel is valid and true regardless of whether a person believes it or not. As Paul says regarding circumcision in a context of unbelief in Romans 3:1-4a:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.
The sacrament, a visual expression of the gospel, is true and valid regardless of the human response to it. The sacrament is an effective means of grace only in the context of faith, but its validity depends upon God, not humanity. If a person is baptized as an infant and then later believes, his baptism is a means of grace used for his blessing. If he never believes, then he is in rebellion against the message of his baptism to his greater judgment. Either way, the baptism is valid. Either way, the baptism is an effective means, either of grace or of judgment.

Also, the sacraments may afford believers an opportunity to publicly identify with Christ, but they are primarily God's statements of His covenant promises. For example, we read that Abraham's circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised" (Romans 4:11). Circumcision was not a seal of Abraham's faith but a seal of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The sacrament points not to our faith but to God's promise and provision. The validity of the sacramental seal is not dependent upon us; it is dependent upon God. Baptism is God's visual vow that His promise to give cleansing and life to all who believe in Jesus is true. The Lord's Supper is God's visual vow that Jesus' body was broken and His blood was shed that all who believe in Him might have spiritual life and nourishment and growth. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Presbyterians baptize adults not baptized as infants when they profess faith. Also, Presbyterians baptize the infants of only those who profess to be believers. The Presbyterian standard in such cases is not regeneration but a credible profession. Presbyterians administer the covenant on the basis of humanly discernible outward evidences. No one can actually examine a heart directly to see if it is indeed regenerate. As finite creatures, we have to be content with the standard, "By their fruits you will know them." A Presbyterian baptized as an adult may later say that he now believes he really became a believer after his baptism. Some parents may say they now think they became true believers after the baptism of their infant child. Presbyterians do not in such cases deny the validity of the baptism. With this understanding of baptismal validity, there is no need for another baptism every time a person wonders if his most recent spiritual renewal might in fact be his first genuine experience of saving faith.

Admission to the Lord's Table

Some argue that we are inconsistent to baptize the infant children of believers but not to admit them to the Lord's Table until later. The reason for the difference in the way we administer baptism and the Lord's Supper is that we regard one as a passive sacrament and the other as an active sacrament. An active sacrament requires some degree of active participation; a passive sacrament does not.

The New Testament calls the church God's holy nation (1 Peter 2). To us, our children are citizens of God's holy nation, and the outward mark of their citizenship is their baptism. Yet we do not regard our younger children as yet ready for all the privileges of this citizenship: partaking of the Lord's Supper, voting in congregational meetings and holding office in the church. These are analogous to the civic privileges of getting a driver's license and being allowed to vote in civil elections.

Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism are both symbols of regeneration, a work of God alone; we are passive recipients. The language of these sacraments is always passive when the recipient is the subject:

Both sacraments are done to a person, are passively received by a person. Both sacraments are suitable for an infant and identify the infant as a member of God's covenant people.

The Old Testament communion offerings (including the Passover) and the New Testament Lord's Supper are acts of active fellowship or communion and symbols of spiritual nourishment and growth, all of which involve the active exercise of faith. The language of the Lord's Super is active, not passive:

These active sacraments are not suited for the infant. They are not suited physically because they involve the ingestion of meat, wine and bread. They are not suited spiritually because they require some degree of preparation and self-examination:
1 Corinthians 11:27-32
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

2 Chronicles 30:18-20
For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the LORD listened to Hezekiah and healed the people.

Numbers 9:6
Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day.

Psalm 51:16-19
For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart-- these, O God, You will not despise. Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

Isaiah 1:14-17
Your New Moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow."

Some do argue that we should admit our covenant children to the Lord's table from infancy. Here are some answers to some of their arguments:

  1. Exodus 12:4 does not prove that children below the age of discretion partook of the Passover. "According to the number of souls" could refer to the absolute number in each household or to the computed number of those qualified to partake in each household. The word translated number is a rare noun derived from a verb meaning count or compute, which verb is used near the end of this verse. Perhaps computation, counting or numbering would be better translations here than the word number, which can be misleading. The phrase "according to the mouth of his eating" means to compute the number of lambs needed for each household in accordance with the quantity each one in that household will be eating. It does not mean that every mouth in every household necessarily ate the Passover.

  2. The word number in Exodus 12:4 cannot refer to the absolute number in each household because not everyone in every household could partake. Most acknowledge that nursing infants could not eat roasted lamb. No one who was uncircumcised, including the sojourner and the hired servant, could partake (12:43-49). Those who were ceremonially unclean could not partake (Numbers 9:6; 2 Chronicles 30:18; John 11:55). These factors indicate that the word number in Exodus 12:4 should not be interpreted absolutely.

  3. Since the ceremonially unclean were prohibited from partaking of the Passover under the Mosaic covenant, there was a degree of active self-examination involved in preparing to partake the Passover. The prophets condemned a hypocritical keeping of ceremonies that was outward only and which neglected the spiritual implications of the ceremonial law. This means that the self-examination needed to prepare for partaking of the Passover had a spiritual element.

  4. Exodus 12:26 says, "And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' ..." The children did not say, "What do we mean by this service?". All this verse indicates is that young children were present at the Passover as learning observers. This verse also implies that covenant children received some degree of catechetical instruction in preparation for meaningful participation in the Passover.

  5. In 1 Corinthians 10, the water from the rock and the manna from heaven are analogous to the new covenant sacraments in that they contained a spiritual message and were tokens of God's saving grace. They were not old covenant sacraments (Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:5) in which infants participated. If they had been old covenant sacraments, the ceremonially unclean could have died of thirst in the wilderness (cf. Numbers 19:11). Animals drank water from the Rock (Numbers 20:11), which is unthinkable if that water had been sacramental.

The young covenant child is baptized based on the promises of the covenant, but he is not subject to the obligations of the covenant (faith, repentance and obedience) until he reaches the age of discretion. This is the general age when the child understands the gospel and meets the qualifications for partaking of the Lord's Supper. His faith needs to have matured to the point where he can meaningfully participate in the Lord's Supper. He should understand its basic symbolism, and be able to participate with the reverence and discernment needed to avoid divine displeasure and even judgment. He should be able to examine himself to know that he is prepared to participate.

As to their being regenerate, only God knows that for sure. We are instructed to administer the covenant based on the outward evidences of the secret inner work of grace. "By their fruit you will know them." Only God can see the heart. The issue before us is whether the child's faith has developed to the point where he can participate meaningfully.

Appendix: Baptism and the Abrahamic Land Promise

Within a year or two after I had come to believe in infant baptism, I had a talk with a Baptist who was struggling with the same issue. He is now a Presbyterian and a seminary professor. I remember his asking me to share with him what had influenced me in my change of convictions. I remember telling him that one thing that had influenced me was my coming to understand the Christian's relationship to the land promise made to Abraham. I had come to see how the Abrahamic land promise was not a promise that related only to Old Testament Israel and thus had expired together with the state of that people. I had come to see how the land promise was both transformed and transferred under the new covenant. This realization made me more open to the possibility that God's promise to Abraham, "I will be your God and the God of your children," also had a continuing relevance under the new covenant.

I wasn't planning on mentioning this point in this study until I read the following argument against infant baptism is a book which a Baptist friend recently loaned me to read:

Do you really believe God has promised to give you the land of Canaan, even that land, in which your father Abraham was a stranger? If not, whatever blessings God has promised to give you, whatever covenants he has made with you, it is not the covenant which he made with Abraham, and in which children were connected with parents.12

Now this is interesting indeed. The argument is that the promise "I will be your God and the God of your children" and the land promise are a package deal. I can't claim one without accepting the other. I wish to respond to this by explaining my willingness to accept the land promise.

Under the old covenant, the land promise had a limited but real fulfillment related to Israel's military conquest of Canaan (Joshua 21:43,45; 23:14; 1 Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8). This initial fulfillment was also a picture and pledge of a greater fulfillment to come. The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise is an eternal fulfillment (Genesis 13:15; 17:8) which involves not only Canaan but the whole world. Notice what Paul said in Romans 4:13:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (Greek: kosmos) was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
The promise made to Abraham and his seed can only be the land promise (Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3,4; 28:4,13; 35:12; 48:4). Paul here identified the land of this promise with the whole world.

The ultimate inheritors of the land promise will be the elect of all the ages. In Galatians 3:16, Paul discussed the promise made to Abraham and his Seed. Paul argued that the Seed to whom this promise was made is Christ. Paul then went on to argue that all who are in Christ are also "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). Thus the ultimate heirs of the land promise are God's elect. In the book of Hebrews, the land promise is associated with citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:8-10,16). The saints of all ages are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-23; 13:14; Galatians 4:26), which is further evidence that the saints of all ages will inherit the land promise.

This association of the land promise with citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem means that during the inter-advent age, the land promise finds fulfillment in "an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" (1 Peter 1:4). From the moment of conversion, the Christian is a comer unto Mount Zion and a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), has spiritual rest in Christ Jesus (Matthew 11:28), and is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6). We today in Christ Jesus have a foretaste of the heavenly rest that was pictured by Joshua's conquest of the promised land (Hebrews 4:8-9).

The land promise today is related to the covenant blessing of the fifth commandment. Under the old covenant, those who honored their father and mother were promised, in general, that it would go well with them in the land which God gave them (Deuteronomy 5:16). Now that the covenant people are from every nation, tribe and tongue, this promise of covenant blessing has been dispensationally adjusted by Paul to read: "that it may be well with you, and you may live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:3). Paul has removed the Palestinian specific geographic limitation in this covenant promise that related covenant blessing in terms of the land promise.

The Christian today is in a position analogous to Israel under Joshua when they conquered the promised land. The difference is that our weapons are not physical (2 Corinthians 10:4) and our task is to conquer the whole world. We know that the Abrahamic land promise ultimately refers to the whole world (Romans 4:13). Adam was originally given dominion over the whole world (Genesis 1:26-28). This inheritance was lost in the fall and Satan became the prince of this world, but God promised that a Seed Redeemer would ultimately defeat Satan (Genesis 3:15) and that this new Adam would regain world dominion (Psalm 8:6). This Seed Redeemer would be a Seed of Abraham through whom Abraham would be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). This Seed Redeemer would be a son of David who would have the nations for His inheritance and the ends of the earth for His possession (Psalm 2:8). This Seed Redeemer would be a Son of Man who would be given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him (Daniel 7:14). Through His resurrection-ascension, Christ has received all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Christ, from His heavenly throne, is today fulfilling Psalm 2 (Revelation 2:26-27; 12:5) and Psalm 8 (Hebrews 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 15:25-27). Even as God gave Palestine to Israel under Joshua and told them to conquer it, so God has given the nations to new covenant Israel under Jesus and has told us to disciple them.

When Christ returns, the heavenly Jerusalem will descend to the new earth (Revelation 21:1-2), which then becomes the eternal locus of the land promise fulfillment. In Hebrews 4:8-9, we learn that the rest under Joshua after the conquest of the promised land was a type of the heavenly Sabbath rest of the eternal inheritance. The ultimate fulfillment of the land promise will be the eternal inheritance of the new earth by the saints of all ages. Only in this eternal context can Abraham and all his true seed inherit the land forever.

Footnotes

1 A portion of this letter is quoted in an article by Steve Schlissel. The letter is mentioned on page 89 of the following:
Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992).

"The English translation of the letter is available in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed. George H. Williams, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 25 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), pp. 73-85. This translation will be cited as LCC 25."
Old, Ibid., page 88, footnote 31.
The letter is also discussed on pages 97-100 of the following: George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975).

2 Taken from DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT WATER BAPTISM, NO BAR TO COMMUNION: OR, TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, PROVED LAWFUL. IN ANSWER TO A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE BAPTISTS, AND PUBLISHED BY MR. T. PAUL AND MR. W. KIFFIN, ENTITLED, 'SOME SERIOUS REFLECTIONS ON THAT PART OF MR BUNYAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS.' WHEREIN THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION STILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. HERE IS ALSO MR. HENRY JESSE'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE, FULLY DECLARING THE DOCTRINE I HAVE ASSERTED. BY JOHN BUNYAN.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 chapter 1, paragraph 6

9 Leviticus 19:23-25
23 'When you come into the land, and have planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as uncircumcised. Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you. It shall not be eaten. 24 'But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the LORD. 25 'And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 26:40-42
40 'But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me, 41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt-- 42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember; I will remember the land.

Deuteronomy 10:16
16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6
6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4
4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest My fury come forth like fire, and burn so that no one can quench it, because of the evil of your doings."

Colossians 2:11
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

10 Joel 2:15-16
15 Blow the trumpet in Zion, consecrate a fast, call a sacred assembly; 16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and nursing babes; let the bridegroom go out from his chamber, and the bride from her dressing room.

Luke 18:15-16 15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."

11 Compare Genesis 12:3 and Acts 3:25 with Genesis 18:18 and Galatians 3:8.

Genesis 12:3: "... in you [Abram] all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Acts 3:25: "... saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Genesis 18:18: "since ... all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in [Abraham]?"

Galatians 3:8: ... "In you [Abraham] all the nations shall be blessed."

12 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism (Laurel, Mississippi: Audubon Press, 2000), page 44.