At Museltof Countercult and Apologetics we are substantially 'reformed' emphasizing the doctrines of grace, yet we stand on the more open wing or left-wing of the movement, believing that there is occasionally a real legalism problem on what might be termed the reformed movement's neopuritan wing. We frankly admit that there are one or two problem areas in reformed theology and, in this fine and outspoken article, Jon Zens addresses some of these problem areas;
IS THERE A COVENANT OF GRACE?
By Jon Zens
With the contemporary rise of interest in
Calvinistic theology, the thinking of many Christians has been
radically changed. To a good number of brethren, the realization
that the essential structure of doctrine they learned for years
in evangelical-fundamentalism was defective and anemic has
brought about what might be termed "spiritual shock." The bulk of
their past cherished assumptions ("free-will," "carnal
Christians," the "altar call," the "pre-tribulation
rapture,"etc.) have had to be scrapped.
In this rebuilding process, not a few Baptists have incorrectly
assumed that the only alternative to the Arminian and
Dispensational scheme is "Covenant Theology." So they go "all the
way" and embrace infant baptism, thinking that a "covenantal"
approach to history necessarily involves abandonment of a Baptist
position. David Kingdon's book, The Children of Abraham, is an
attempt to show that one can be a Baptist, a Calvinist, and also
take the "covenant of grace" seriously.
Are There Just Two Alternatives?
However, it seems to me that there is one concept that is
consistently assumed by many Calvinistic Baptists and all
Calvinistic paedobaptists where our thinking needs to be
Biblically sharpened. This the "covenant of grace" concept. While
Dispensationalism stresses the diversity of God's dealings with
men in different eras of history, Covenant Theology has
emphasized "one" covenant of grace. The historical covenants are
seen as just different administrations of the "covenant of
grace." Are these two approaches the only two alternatives?
Historically, during the last hundred years, the answer has been
"Yes" (see Calvin Knox Cummings, The Covenant of Grace, pp.6-7).
But I want to suggest the possibility that the Biblical data
reveals another position. Because this position may be more in
line with Scripture, the pitfalls of the other two systems are
avoided, and justice can be done to all that the inspired Word
teaches. And I would stress that our minds must be glued to every
word that comes from God's mouth (Matt. 4:4). The "covenant of
grace" indeed is embedded in the history of Reformed thinking.
But this in and of itself does not guarantee the accuracy of the
concept. And, it must be made clear that its rejection does not
call into question the Calvinistic theology of the Westminster of
Philadelphia confessions of faith.
Furthermore, no Christian "system" of thought can ever be
absolutely fixed. Even John Murray, an ardent covenant
theologian, encourages us to subject this system to further
analysis.
It would not be, however, in the interests of theological
conservation or theological progress to think that the covenant
theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no
further need for correction, modification, and expansion.
Theology must always be undergoing reformation. The human
understanding is imperfect.... there always remains the need for
correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be
brought into closer approximation to the Scripture....It appears
to me that the covenant theology...needs recasting (The Covenant
of Grace, The Tyndale House, 1954,pp.4-5)
Also, it must be understood that my main interest in this study
is to call into question the use of the "one covenant/various
administrations" concept as a central argument for infant
baptism. As one reads Reformed theologians, he sees at the heart
of their rationale for including infants "in the covenant" is the
idea that one covenant of grace stands above history, and is
reflected in the historical covenants. Since infants were
included in the Abrahamic administration of the "covenant of
grace," why should we think that infants are excluded from the
new administration of the same "covenant of grace"?
The Biblical View of God's Plan in Christ
Let us now seriously reflect on the Biblical data. How does the
Bible describe God's plan before history; how does the Bible
reflect on the unfolding of that plan in history?
With respect to God's intentions before time, the Scripture
designates them comprehensively as an "eternal purpose which he
purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). This
"purpose" of God in Christ is elsewhere called a "decree"
(Ps.2:7), a "determinate counsel" (Acts 2:23; 4:28), and
"foreordination" (1 Pet.1:20). Jesus called it His "Father's
business" (Luke 2:49), "the work" given to Him by the Father
(John 17:4), and "the will of Him Who sent Me" (John 6:38; see
Heb.10:9). Clearly, before history, God "purposed" to glorify His
Son in history (John 17:1,5).
The Bible, then unfolds the history of God's purpose to exalt
Christ. We may summarize the direction of human events by saying
that the historic process moved toward Christ through Abraham's
seed (Rom.9:4), and then after Christ's work the gospel goes out
to all nations in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant
(Gal.3:8). The history which moves toward Christ is structured by
several covenants; the history after Christ is comprehended by
the New Covenant.
The New Covenant is the pivotal point in redemptive history. From
the saying of Christ, "it is finished," we must observe something
very important. The earthly accomplishment of redemption by the
Messiah is both the culmination of (1) the eternal purpose (1
Pet.1:20), and (2) the historic process (Gal.4:4). In other
words, the ordained plan prior to history, and redemptive history
itself come to focus and fulfillment only by Christ sealing the
New Covenant with His blood. This "blood" was both "foreordained"
in eternity and typified in the sacrificial blood of the Mosaic
era.
Summarizing, I see in the Biblical account the following: (1) a
precreation "purpose" of God "in Christ"; (2) an historic process
which is structured by several covenants; and (3) an historic
manifestation of the obedient Son who fulfilled both His Father's
pre-creation "will", and all the promises in history to the
fathers (Rom.15:8).
Covenant Theology's View of God's Plan In Christ
Covenant theologians have substituted for the Biblical words
describing God's eternal plan, such as "decree" and "purpose,"
the concepts of a "covenant of redemption and a "covenant of
grace." The "covenant of redemption," they say, was between the
Father and the Son. In this "covenant" they agreed to save the
elect by the work of Christ. The "covenant of grace" is between
the Trinity and elect sinners (see Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, pp.269-270; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology,
Vol.2,pp.358-359; Donald MacLeod, "Covenant 2," Banner of Truth,
June, 1975,p.25).
Immediately, I have great difficulty with viewing this "covenant
of redemption" as Bi-tarian, that is, between the Father and the
Son. The covenant theologians consistently assert that in this
covenant the Father and Son are the parties. On what basis is the
Holy Spirit left out? Must not any plan of the Godhead
necessarily be Trinitarian? As E.W. Johnson states, "The very
idea of a contract between the Father and Son is foreign to the
biblical concept of the covenant of our salvation" ("Covenant
Theology," Sovereign Grace Message, September, 1971,p.2.)
But, further, why must the "covenant" concept be called into
service to describe the "eternal purpose" of God in Christ? Why
not be satisfied with the Biblical delineation? As far as I can
tell, the Bible nowhere calls the pre-creation commitments in the
Godhead - among themselves or to elect sinners - a
"covenant."
The reason this is so, I believe, is because the Bible indicates
that "covenant" is a specifically historical term. In other
words, a "covenant" is a revelation of God's purposes to men in
time. The covenants prior to Christ structure history and present
aspects of Christ's work. No one covenant in the era before
Christ comprehends all the Messiah's future work. But the New
Covenant is final (no covenant will take its place) and fulfills
all that was ever promised before to the fathers. Covenant
theologians must face these important questions: (1) is there any
Biblical evidence that the word "covenant" is ever used with
reference to something that is not a revelation of God in time?
(2) is there any evidence in the Bible of "one" covenant? As Paul
looked back upon the old era he does not see "one covenant with
various administrations," but rather "covenants [plural] of
promise" now fulfilled in Christ (Eph.2:12; Rom.9:4; see John
Murray, The Covenant of Grace, p.26).
It is interesting that - for whatever reasons - - Eph.2:12 is
misquoted sometimes. My guess is that some men are so used to
thinking in terms of "one" covenant that they put in this concept
where, in fact, the word is in the plural.
Until we thus believe we are aliens and strangers from the
covenant of promise (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol.2,
p.364).
Rather he meant that in their unregenerate state they were...
"strangers from the covenant of promise" (Kingdon, Children of
Abraham, p.33).
Obviously, these "covenants" Paul speaks of were solemnized in
history. There was a specific moment when the covenant was made:
"in the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram"
(Gen.15:18). As Howard A. Snyder rightly observes concerning the
appearance of the "covenants" in Scripture:
The covenant implies a covenant occasion in which the contract
between God and man was actually established in space and
time....The covenant is established in historical occurrences
that can be recorded, commemorated and renewed (The Problem of
Wineskins, Inter-Varsity Press, p.104).
But can this be said about the "covenant of grace"? No, for it is
never manifested in history. Rather, it is always above history,
being, as covenant theologians put it, administered in different
ways in history (Westminster Confession, 7:6).
The core of Covenant Theology, then, boils down to their position
that :
This one Covenant of Grace is administered in different ways
during different periods in the Bible....these are simply
different methods of administering the same Covenant of Grace.
The character of the covenant is not changed by these different
methods of applying it....So there is one Covenant of Grace but
different ways of administering that covenant (Cummings, The
Covenant of Grace, pp.12-13).
But, it must be asked, where is "covenant of grace" revealed in
the Bible? Romans 9:4 and Eph.2:12 indicate that a plurality of
covenants are fulfilled in a better covenant, not that the
historic covenants are administrations of one covenant which
stands above history. The historic covenants are progressive
revelations of the heavenly purpose to seal the New
Covenant.
If the Bible reveals that a "covenant" must be an event in
history, then this calls into question the use that is made of
the "covenant of grace" to unify redemptive history. Should we
not stay within the realm of Biblical language and assert that
God has one purpose in Christ prior to history and has "cut" a
plurality of covenants in history? The "one covenant/various
administrations" idea certainly does not jump out at you from the
pages of Scripture. Although Charles Ryrie is mistaken in his
Dispensational approach to the Bible, I do believe he has rightly
discerned that:
there still remains the stark reality that nowhere does Scripture
speak of a covenant of works or a covenant of grace as it speaks
of a covenant with Abraham or a covenant at Sinai or the new
covenant (Dispensationalism Today, Moody Press, p.186).
The "Covenant of Grace" and Infant Baptism
If one reads the Reformed arguments for infant baptism, he will
readily see that this "covenant of grace" concept stands at the
center of their apologetic (see Berkhof, pp.276, 634; John
Calvin, Institutes, IV, 16, 5; Cummings, p.16; Hodge, Vol.3,
p.555). John Murray, one of the most articulate covenant
theologians, states the matter like this:
It is because there is such evidence of the perpetual operation
of this gracious principle in the administration of God's
covenant that we baptize infants. It is for that reason alone
that we continue to baptize them (Christian Baptism, Presbyterian
& Reformed Pub. Co., p.71).
Their reasoning is simply this: since infants were included in
the Old Covenant administration of the "one" covenant of grace,
we must suppose that infants are also included in the New
Covenant administration of this same covenant of grace.
But I suggest that this reasoning is invalid. It does not allow
for real progress in redemptive history (see Kingdon, pp.74-75).
Again, I think Ryrie has rightly observed:
Covenant Theology, then, because of the rigidity of its unifying
principle of the covenant of grace can never show within its
system proper progress of revelation (Dispensationalism Today,
p.19).
With the "one covenant/different administrations" starting point,
justice can be done neither to the diversity and progress of
history leading up to the "fullness of time," nor to the
completeness and finality of the New Covenant manifested in the
"last days." Remember, there was a radical difference prophesied
between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant: "not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers....But this shall
be the covenant" (Jer.31:32-33). But covenant theologians must
level the historic covenants so that they all - including the New
Covenant - are just reflections in different ages of "one"
covenant of grace standing above history.
The Place of "Law" in the New Covenant
An example of how important it is to do justice to the finality
of God's purposes in the New Covenant can be illustrated in the
way that the concept of "law" is handled. Now this is a very
involved subject, and here I wish only to suggest some
foundational thoughts. The Dispensationalists have posited that
law and grace are opposites: where law is in force, grace is not
operative; where grace is in force, law is not operative. But
Reformed Theology has sought to take seriously the fact that
there is indeed grace present in the administration of law, and
law present in the administration of grace (see E. Kevan's The
Grace of Law, Baker Book House, 1965). However, there is in this
matter a crucial area where, it seems to me, our thoughts must be
more Biblically shaped. This area is the relationship of the
Mosaic administration of law to the New Covenant administration
of grace. One gets the impression, in varying degrees, from
reading covenant theologians that we are still in some sense
"under Moses." Let me briefly explain what I mean.
They tell us that the Mosaic age consisted of three kinds of law:
civil, ceremonial and moral. The first two, it is said, were
abolished in Christ. But the third, the Ten Commandments,
continue on as the standard of Christian conduct. Thus, in line
with this three - fold distinction of the Law, many Reformed
churches read the Ten Commandments every Sunday. A few such
theologians, seeing the inconsistency of separating the Ten Words
from the rest of the Mosaic code, would maintain that all of
Moses is still binding - with some modifications - on the church
and society.
However, the manner in which Law is handled in this system does
not seem to sufficiently communicate the fact that the Mosaic era
is "done away" with the establishing of the New Covenant (2
Cor.3:11,13). The history of the Reformation reveals a consistent
tendency of its leaders to resurrect the Old Covenant theocracy
(see Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren,
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1964, esp. pp.63-94). They sought to establish
situations where church and state were joined together, using the
Israelite theocracy as a model.
But the New Covenant makes it clear that the "house of Moses" is
finished, and now we are in a house whose Head is Christ
(Heb.3:5-6). The Kingdom with Christ as its Mediator is "not of
this world"(John 17:14; 18:36). It can never be identified with
any secular political order. The church in this "evil age" is
always a separate entity in society, and never equated with the
geographical boundaries of a society. The Mosaic era was inferior
and preparatory, and it was never intended to be an "eternal"
political model. The course of redemptive history was ordered so
that the national theocracy and its shadows gave way to a Kingdom
whose subjects would experience the realities promised, and offer
"spiritual sacrifices" (1 Pet.2:5; Heb.13:15-16).
In light of this New Covenant finality, is it valid to push
old-era practice into the New Age (see Kingdon, pp.46-47)? It
seems to me that the three-fold breakdown of the law is helpful
in teaching the kinds of Old Covenant laws. But I question its
validity as a rationale for getting the "law of Moses" into the
New Covenant. Christ, not Moses, is our Mediator. The
commandments on "tables of stone" (2 Cor.3:3) must always be
connected with a specific covenant. The "law of Moses" was that
code which specifically constituted Israel as a special nation
(Deut.4:7-8; Neh.9:13). But this "law of Moses" was always
thought of as a totality. The three-fold distinction would have
been very artificial to the Israelite, to say the least. He could
not separate the Ten Words from the "civil" and "ceremonial"
laws. Arnold Fruchtenbaum observes:
The Mosaic law is viewed by the Scriptures as a unit. The word
torah ("law") when applied to the law of Moses is always
singular, although it contains 613 commandments (Hebrew
Christianity: Its Theology, History, and Philosophy, Canon Press,
Wash. D.C., 1974,p.82).
Thus, the division of Moses' law into three categories is a
"totally arbitrary distinction between aspects of the law"
(Walter Martin, "The Christian and the Law," Eternity, June,
1958,p.18).
Rather than trying to get the "moral" aspect of Moses into the
Messianic age, we do well to submit ourselves to the progress of
redemptive revelation. New Covenant subjects are under the "law
of Christ" (Gal.6:2). Whatever "law" binds the Christian is in
the hands of Christ, not Moses. The covenant of which Moses was
the mediator is abolished. We are now under the law of a "better"
covenant. Obviously, there is no place for "antinomianism"
(anti-law; lawlessness) in the New Covenant. In it, the "law will
be put in the heart by the operation of the Spirit. Those in the
New Covenant obey the words of Christ (Matt.28:20; 1 John 2:3-4;
5:3). But Paul makes his position clear in 1 Cor.9:19-21:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under
the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not
under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not
having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am
not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win
those not having the law (New International Version).
Paul's liberty in Christ, as Martin Luther put it, made him "a
perfectly free lord of all, subject to none....[and] a perfectly
dutiful servant of all" (Christian Liberty (1520), Fortress
Press, Philadelphia, 1957, p.7). While Paul was around Jews he
became like one under the law. But what was the reality Paul kept
in view in these circumstances? "Though I myself am not under the
law" [of Moses]. When Paul was around Gentiles, he became like
one without the law. But, in this situation, Paul always
remembered that he was "under Christ's law." We can diagram the
matter like this:
Paul's Example for Christians
Not under Moses' Law..............Jews: Have the Law of Moses
(Rom.2:17-18; 1 Cor.9:20)
In-Law to Christ (ennomos)......Gentiles: Do not have the Law of
Moses (Rom.2:12,14; 1 Cor.9:21)
We must remember that Moses' law was the center of Paul's
existence prior to his conversion (see F.F. Bruce, "The Grace of
God and the Law of Christ," God and the Good, Clifton Orlebese
and Lewis Smedes, eds.; Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975, pp.22-24). After
his conversion, the Mediator of the New Covenant became the focus
of his life (Phil.1:21). This ardent disciple of Moses, indeed a
"Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil.3:5), was transformed into a "servant
of a new covenant" (2 Cor.3:6).
Thus we must come to grips with the fact that redemptive history
moves away from Moses to Christ (Matt.11-13; John 1:17). With a
change in covenants (old to new) comes of necessity a change in
the law (Heb.7:12, 18-22). We can illustrate the changes involved
in the following manner, using 2 Cor.3 as our main reference
point.
Old Covenant (2 Cor.3:14) Gives Way To New Covenant... (2
Cor.3:6)
Mediator, Moses Gives Way To Mediator, Christ
Law of Moses Gives Way To Law of Christ
Ministry of Death Gives Way To Ministry of Life
Ministry of Letter Gives Way To Ministry of Spirit
Writing on Stones Gives Way To Writing on Hearts
Fading Glory Gives Way To Abiding Glory
Ministry of Condemnation Gives Way To Ministry of
Righteousness
Disobedient People (Heb.10:9) Gives Way To Obedient People
(Heb.10:10)
People Who As a Whole Do not "Know the Lord" (Jer.2:8; 4:22; 9:3)
Gives Way To People Who As a Whole "Know the Lord" (Jer. 31:34;
24:7)
Theocracy Where Church and State Are United Gives Way To
Spiritual Nation Which Cannot Be Identified with any Political
Order
It is interesting to note that when most paedobaptists comment on
2 Cor.3 they must say that Paul's comparison is between the New
Covenant and the Jewish perversion of the Old Covenant. But this
is a forced, unnatural interpretation of the passage. Paul is
simply comparing the essence of the Old Covenant with the essence
of the New Covenant. Again, this shows that many covenant
theologians must hedge when it comes to the implications of
progress toward a new order which takes the place of the old
theocracy.
In summary, then, we must see the books of the Old Testament as
that body of literature which was associated with the Mosaic
Covenant. Those books were absolutely binding and not to be
tampered with (see Joshua 1:6-8). Likewise, with the coming of a
New and better covenant, a new body of inspired literature arose.
This New Testament literature is binding on the New Covenant
community (Rev.22:18-19; see Meredith Kline's The Structure of
Biblical Authority, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, pp.68-75). The use
of the Old Testament by the Apostles in Acts and the Epistles is
primarily to unfold, as Christ Himself did, from Moses, the
prophets and the Psalms "the things concerning Himself" (Luke
24:27,44). Their use of the Old Testament was Chistocentric
(Christ-centered), not nomocentric (law-centered).
It is significant that in the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) the
conclusion reached was not that the political and ceremonial
aspects of the law were abolished, and now all the Gentiles
needed as a rule of life was the "moral" aspect of Moses. The
issue was clear: "It was needful to circumcise them [Gentiles],
and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (15:5). The
conclusion is also unmistakable: "Forasmuch as we have heard,
that certain which went out from us have troubled you [Gentiles]
with words, subverting your souls, saying, You must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such
commandment" (15:24). Says F.F. Bruce:
Paul's way was not to impose the Mosaic law on them [Gentiles],
but to emphasize the law of Christ - to insist that the gospel
which had brought them salvation had ethical implications, and to
spell out in detail what those implications were ("The Grace of
God and the Gospel,"p.29).
We must, therefore, be leery of any "Christian" movement which
exalts the law of Moses inordinately, and desires the
implementation of a theocracy in contemporary society. We have no
warrant to be essentially expositors of the Mosaic law as
ministers of the New Covenant. We are living in the age of
promise. Remember, we cannot isolate the Law from its context and
purposes in the history of redemption. Paul's order of salvation
history is first promise to Abraham and his seed (Gal.3:16);
secondly, the parenthesis of the Mosaic Law (3:17,23,25); and
thirdly, the coming of the promised Seed (Christ) in the
incarnation (3:19,23; 4:4). This inspired order of redemption
must be maintained at all costs: (1) promise; (2) law; (3)
promise (3:23,25; see H. Carl Shank, "Gospel Preaching and
Orthodox Preaching," Baptist Reformation Review, Summer,
1976,p.17, footnote 10). A consistent emphasis on Moses as "law"
and not as "testifying" of Christ (John 5:39,46-47) has caused
some to be deflected from the gracious message of the gospel. Do
we see Paul in Romans 13 exhorting Christians to expend energy to
see the Mosaic law implemented in the Roman state? No. Christians
were told to submit to the magistrates, not to subdue the
government with the Mosaic code. If the progress of redemption
was taken seriously, these injurious attempts to perpetuate what
has been set aside by the New Covenant would cease.
Each Covenant Defines Its Subjects
Along this line of thought, Covenant Theology does not allow each
covenant to be self-defining. Each oath has specific parties
involved in it, and certain ordinances attached to it. The Noahic
covenant includes all of creation as subjects. The Mosaic
covenant includes only the nation of Israel. But the crucial
point is that the new Covenant defines its subjects as only those
who "know the Lord: for they shall all know Me, from the least of
them to greatest" (Jer.31:34).
Covenant Theology rules out the possibility that New Covenant
Church may consist of only a believing community - the remnant
who "know the Lord" - by the use of their "covenant of grace."
This ensures, as Murray puts it, "the perpetual operation of this
gracious principle" of including infants in the new
administration of the "covenant of grace." Thus infants, who do
not "know the Lord" because by birth they are spiritually dead
"in Adam" (1 Cor.15:22), are by this rationale allowed to fill
the ranks of the New Covenant community.
Indeed, then, if the "one covenant/different administrations"
concept is Biblically unacceptable, then the paedobaptist
superstructure begins to crumble. It is at this point that I feel
Kingdon's concession to paedobaptists is unnecessary and
incorrect. He says in Children of Abraham:
Their basic contention is correct - the covenant of grace is one
in all ages. In my view Baptists will never seriously disturb
Reformed paedobaptists until they see this (p.21)
I believe Baptists can challenge Reformed paedobaptists on many
exegetical grounds. But, in light of the prominence they give to
this "one covenant of grace" idea, I feel that we need to disturb
them by rejecting this elusive "covenant of grace." The use they
make of it simply does not flow from Scripture.
Infant "Church Members"?
The inclusion of infants as "members" in Christ's church also
reflects the confusion wrought when the Reformers "reached for
the Old Testament and applied the federal understanding of the
sacraments to the new dispensation" (Geerhardus Vos, The Covenant
In Reformed Theology [1893], trans. By S. Voorvinde and W.
VanGemeren, p.2). In the Mosaic era physical birth was sufficient
to guarantee membership in the Israelite nation. As Hodge puts
it, "under the old economy, the Church and State were identical"
(Vol.3, 552). To apply this analogy to the new era results in the
teaching that infants are constituted as Christians by birth. To
even suggest this is "positively shameful" to Dr. John R. DeWitt
("Children and the Covenant of Grace," Westminster Theological
Journal, Winter, 1975, p.247). However, paedobaptist consistently
state such things as "the parents are citizens of the Kingdom,
and their children are citizens due to the fact that their
parents are citizens" (H. Mensch, The Reformed Scope, March,
1977, p.4), and "children of believers...enter the covenant by
birth" (Berkhof, p.287). Even the Westminster Confession states
that one of the purposes of child-bearing in marriage is "for the
increase...of the Church with an holy seed" (24:2).
"Believers and Their Seed?"
This brings up another point which needs sharpening. The
paedobaptists always asserts that the principle established in
the Old Covenant is that "believers and their seed" received the
ordinances of the covenant (see Berkhof, p.276; deWitt,
pp.250-251). If this principle was true in the old era, they say,
then it surely holds true for the new era. But the phrase
"believers and their seed" is wrong to start with. In the Old
Covenant it was never the case that believers only and their seed
received the covenant signs. Rather, it was all men in Israel -
whether they were believers or not - and their seed who were
circumcised. Saving belief in one or both of the parents was
never in view as a "condition" for an Israelite man to have his
male seed circumcised. This renders invalid the use paedobaptist
make of the "believers and their seed" formula in the New
Covenant.
Tensions In Paedobaptism
Using the "one covenant/various administrations" as a rationale
to include infants in the church creates tensions which I have
yet seen to be dealt with satisfactorily by covenant theologians.
For instance, Hodge states the Biblical position that:
We come into the world under condemnation. We are by nature,
i.e., as we are born, the children of wrath (Vol.2,p.122).
Yet he will turn right around and posit that infants of believers
are "federally" holy and to be regarded as Christians.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church service for the "Baptism of An
Infant" asks the parents:
Do you acknowledge that, although our children are conceived and
born in sin and therefore subject to condemnation, they are holy
in Christ, and as members of his church ought to be baptized?
(Trinity Hymnal [Confessional Edition], Philadelphia, 1961,
p.667).
The infants of believers are in some mysterious way both
condemned and holy; in Adam and yet in Christ; under wrath and
yet a church member. If infants are at birth concretely reckoned
as condemned in solidarity with Adam (per Hodge), then what
translates them from wrath to grace? Their birth from Christian
parents? Their baptism? Certainly not because they have "with the
heart believed unto righteousness" (Rom.10:10)!
Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Professor of New Testament Theology at
Westminster Theological Seminary, exegetes Romans 6:3ff. In the
course of his doctoral thesis, and concludes:
It is clear, especially in this context, that Paul understands
union with Christ in a quite concrete manner.... Paul is here
viewing resurrection with Christ not only in terms of solidarity
with him at the time point of his resurrection but also as that
which takes place in the life histories of individual
believers....The union which Paul has in view here is primarily
experiential in nature....As we have seen repeatedly, these
references describe the actual life experience of the individual
believer....What baptism signifies and seals is a transition in
the experience of the recipient, a transition from being
(existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined
to him (Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Pauline
Soteriology, mimeographed by the Westminster Student Service,
1971, pp.38-45).
Now I ask, how can the fruit of his careful exegesis be applied
with any meaning to infants? "Again and again, when paedobaptists
deal with many areas of Scripture they do a fine job. But when
they move into the area of infant baptism their light grows dim.
What sense does it make - without falling into heresy - to employ
such strong terminology as Dr. Gaffin does with reference to
infants? Dr. Gaffin's exegesis aligns him with a position that
would associate the ordinance of baptism with believers only. Yet
he must somehow work infants into the Romans 6 meaning of
baptism. Kingdon suggests that Reformed paedobaptists avoid
"baptismal regeneration" in their position, and that this
constitutes part of its appeal (pp.18-19). To be sure, most deny
it out of one side of their mouth; but out of the other side,
they see their children as Christians. They must always face the
tension: how does the child become "Christ's" when all the
paedobaptists I have read admit that infants eight days old are
dead in Adam and incapable of exercising personal faith?
"Covenant of Grace"?
In closing, I think it is significant to observe what happened in
John Murray's booklet, The Covenant of Grace. His
biblical-theological study led him to see in Scripture a
plurality of covenants (p.26) culminating in the finality of the
New Covenant (pp.28,31-32). He nowhere found in the Bible "one
covenant of grace" variously administered. To be sure, in his
other writings he states that such a covenant exists. But he did
not find it in his Scriptural study with the title The Covenant
of Grace. He uses only the phrase "covenant grace," but never
"the covenant of grace." This again suggests the propriety of
seeing "covenants" as historical manifestations, and of avoiding
a "covenant of grace" which stands above history. If we stick
with the Biblical presentation of one "purpose" in Christ, and a
plurality of covenants in history, we will avoid the confusion of
Dispensationalism's earthly-purpose-for-Israel,
heavenly-purpose-for-church theory, and the unnecessary
assumptions of Covenant Theology which are used to bring infants
into the New Covenant church.