Latest / Reformed Thinking / Brothers, Magnify the Meaning of Baptism | John Piper

Transcript

Brothers, Magnify the Meaning of Baptism | John Piper · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to the deep dive brought to you by Reformed Thinking.
• 0:03
  We take source material, could be articles, notes, research,
• 0:07
  and really try to dig in and find some clarity, maybe some
• 0:10
  insights you wouldn't get just from a quick read today.
• 0:13
  We've got a really focused set of sources in front of us.
• 0:16
  They look at a specific point of theological difference inside
• 0:20
  the broader Reformed world. We're talking about baptism and
• 0:23
  specifically the contrast between what the Westminster
• 0:26
  Confession of Faith says and the position known as believer
• 0:28
  baptism. That's right, and for listeners
• 0:31
  who, like us, hold the WCF in high regard, this is an
• 0:35
  interesting deep dive because the sources trace how a
• 0:39
  particular theological stance developed.
• 0:41
  It starts with respect for those formal creeds, like the
• 0:43
  Confession, but then moves into a pretty rigorous critique based
• 0:46
  on biblical texts and, crucially, covenant theology.
• 0:50
  Our aim here is to really dissect that intellectual
• 0:52
  progression. We want to understand the two
• 0:53
  main points where things diverge on this ordinance, not just what
• 0:56
  the differences are, but you know why they exist at a deeper
• 0:59
  theological level. OK, let's get into it then.
• 1:02
  We really have to start at the, well, the formal starting point.
• 1:06
  The source material we're looking at comes from someone
• 1:08
  who clearly has immense respect for the Westminster Confession,
• 1:11
  calls it a magnificent statement of truths, which it is.
• 1:15
  But even with that admiration, the source is 0 in on 2 specific
• 1:18
  paragraphs in chapter 28. These two paragraphs really
• 1:21
  crystallize the disagreement about how baptism is
• 1:24
  administered, A disagreement that continues within the wider
• 1:27
  Reformed community. Chapter 28 Yes, the confession
• 1:30
  tries to define both the the the physical action involved in
• 1:33
  baptism and also who should receive it.
• 1:36
  And the sources are clear. The split happens right there on
• 1:38
  those two issues. First, the proper way to do it,
• 1:40
  the mode. Second, whether infants should
• 1:42
  be included. We're looking squarely
• 1:44
  paragraphs 28.3 and 28.4. They contain a wealth of truth,
• 1:47
  absolutely, but they also contain the, let's say, the
• 1:51
  seeds of this particular separation all.
• 1:53
  Right distinctive #1 the how? How is the physical act of
• 1:57
  baptism actually supposed to be done?
• 2:00
  WCF 28.3 gives a straightforward answer.
• 2:03
  It says baptism is rightly administered by pouring or
• 2:06
  sprinkling water upon the person.
• 2:08
  That's the classic paedo Baptist understanding of the mode, isn't
• 2:11
  it? It allows for different forms.
• 2:13
  It does, and this is immediately where the contrast comes in with
• 2:16
  the view we're examining. That view defines baptism very
• 2:20
  specifically, the immersion of the believer in water in the
• 2:24
  name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
• 2:27
  So if you hold that definition well, pouring and sprinkling
• 2:30
  just don't fit the bill. They aren't the required action.
• 2:32
  I think it's worth pausing on the language here for a second,
• 2:34
  because often this disagreement about mode boils down to 1 Greek
• 2:38
  word, right? Baptiso.
• 2:39
  For those who are comfortable with the WCF statement that
• 2:41
  Greek root is often seen more broadly, maybe meaning to wash
• 2:45
  or to perform a cleansing rite which could allow for sprinkling
• 2:48
  or pouring. But what do these sources say
• 2:50
  about how the believer baptism side interprets that same word?
• 2:54
  Well, the sources coming from that perspective argue that
• 2:56
  while baptizo might sometimes mean something like ceremonial
• 2:59
  washing and Greek outside the New Testament, it's consistent
• 3:03
  use inside the New Testament, especially when you look at how
• 3:06
  the ACT is described, really points towards immersion.
• 3:09
  You know, a dipping, A plunging. It's less about the word in
• 3:12
  isolation and more about the context describing the action.
• 3:15
  And that description, that context, is tied directly to the
• 3:18
  spiritual meaning, isn't it, according to this view?
• 3:21
  Absolutely. The spiritual reality being
• 3:23
  pictured is identification with Christ's death and resurrection.
• 3:27
  The source points specifically to texts that describe baptism
• 3:30
  as a burial. We're talking Colossians 2.12
• 3:33
  and Romans 6 point lore. Romans 6.4 says believers are
• 3:36
  buried therefore with him by baptism into death.
• 3:39
  End Quote. And Colossians 2.12 buried with
• 3:43
  him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him.
• 3:45
  The imagery is quite strong. So the argument isn't just about
• 3:49
  linguistics, like dictionary definitions of baptizo, it's
• 3:52
  about the metaphor. If the physical action is meant
• 3:54
  to symbolize dying, being buried, and then rising again,
• 3:58
  well, a little sprinkle or pour doesn't quite capture that
• 4:01
  visual of being buried under the water and then raised up out of
• 4:04
  it. Precisely.
• 4:05
  And if you accept immersion as the mode required by that New
• 4:09
  Testament symbolism, then the logical next step, as the source
• 4:12
  states, is that the other modes the WCF calls, rightly
• 4:16
  administered, pouring and sprinkling, actually become, in
• 4:19
  this view, improper, unfitting, even inappropriate.
• 4:22
  They just don't correctly represent what the ordinance is
• 4:25
  supposed to signify. It kind of forces someone
• 4:27
  holding the believer baptism view to disagree with the WCF
• 4:30
  flexibility right there on .1. OK, so the first point of
• 4:33
  divergent is the how. The second point, and the source
• 4:36
  suggests this might be the deeper 1, is The Who.
• 4:39
  WCF 28.4 states it very clearly. The infants of one or both
• 4:43
  believing parents are to be baptized.
• 4:46
  That's about as clear a definition of paedo baptism,
• 4:48
  instant baptism as you can get. It's rooted in that idea of the
• 4:51
  Covenant family. And here you have the complete
• 4:54
  conceptual opposition. The believer baptism position
• 4:57
  holds the direct opposite. Infants are not to be baptized.
• 5:02
  Now, this isn't just an arbitrary disagreement, it flows
• 5:05
  directly from their definition of what baptism is.
• 5:07
  The definition being the immersion of the believer.
• 5:10
  Yes. If baptism is an act of
• 5:12
  obedience, an outward sign that points to an internal spiritual
• 5:16
  reality, namely the death, burial, and resurrection an
• 5:20
  individual shares with Christ, and if the necessary condition
• 5:23
  for receiving that sign is personal faith, well then an
• 5:26
  infant by definition can't meet that condition.
• 5:29
  An infant hasn't yet exercised conscious faith.
• 5:32
  So from this perspective, administering the sign without
• 5:35
  the required faith makes the ACT while either meaningless or
• 5:38
  potentially even misleading. So these two distinctives, the
• 5:41
  mode Howe and the recipient who they really frame the debate
• 5:45
  right from the start based on the WCF's own statements.
• 5:48
  But the source material doesn't just stop it outlining the
• 5:50
  differences, it goes on to describe the intellectual past
• 5:52
  someone might take to arrive at and solidify that believer
• 5:55
  baptism position. It lays out this kind of three
• 5:57
  stage process of reasoning. Yeah, this three stage structure
• 6:00
  is quite helpful actually. It maps out how the argument for
• 6:03
  believer baptism often develops. It's presented not as
• 6:07
  discovering everything at once, but more like a maturing
• 6:09
  understanding. It starts with things you notice
• 6:12
  in the biblical narratives, things that seem suggestive, and
• 6:15
  then moves towards a more solid theological foundation.
• 6:18
  The author labels this first stage childhood reasoning.
• 6:22
  Now that sounds maybe a bit dismissive, but I think the idea
• 6:25
  is just that it relies on what's immediately observable surface
• 6:30
  level evidence from reading the New Testament stories.
• 6:32
  It's what you might notice first.
• 6:34
  Right. It's based on direct
• 6:35
  observation. The first observation is pretty
• 6:36
  intuitive. Every single baptism you read
• 6:39
  about in the New Testament narratives involves someone who
• 6:41
  first professed faith in Christ. Think about Philip in the
• 6:45
  Ethiopian eunuch. I believe that Jesus Christ is
• 6:48
  the Son of God. Then baptism or Paul's
• 6:51
  conversion belief, then baptism seems to be the pattern.
• 6:55
  And the second observation is what's not there, the the
• 6:58
  absence of infants. There's no explicit story, no
• 7:01
  verse that says and they baptize the baby.
• 7:04
  But wait, this is where the paedo Baptist argument usually
• 7:06
  comes in quite strongly, isn't it?
• 7:08
  They point to the household baptisms.
• 7:10
  They argue they don't need an explicit infant example because
• 7:14
  of those passages. That's the key point of debate
• 7:16
  in stage 1. Absolutely pay a Baptist.
• 7:18
  Look at texts mentioning whole households being baptized,
• 7:21
  Lydia's household in Acts 16.15, the Philippian jailer's
• 7:25
  household in Acts 16.33, maybe the household of Stephanus in
• 7:28
  First Corinthians 1.16. And the argument is, look, in
• 7:31
  the ancient world, a household very likely included infants and
• 7:35
  young children, so the assumption is they must have
• 7:38
  been baptized too, as part of the family unit under the
• 7:41
  believing head. OK, so how does the source of
• 7:43
  material push back against that assumption if there's no
• 7:46
  explicit no infants allowed first either?
• 7:49
  How do you counter the household argument just based on
• 7:51
  observation? It counters the assumption by
• 7:53
  looking closely at the surrounding details in the
• 7:56
  narrative, particularly Luke's phrasing.
• 7:58
  Take the Philippian jailer in Acts 16.
• 8:01
  Before the baptism, Luke makes a point of saying that Paul and
• 8:04
  Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in
• 8:07
  his house. Acts 16.32.
• 8:09
  The fact that Luke specifies the word was spoken to all in the
• 8:12
  house suggests that those who are baptized were those capable
• 8:15
  of hearing and presumably responding to the Word.
• 8:19
  It implies that hearing and believing were prerequisites for
• 8:21
  everyone baptized in that household.
• 8:23
  OK, that does shift the burden of proof a bit, doesn't it?
• 8:26
  It makes the automatic inclusion of infants in those households
• 8:29
  an assumption that isn't explicitly supported and maybe
• 8:32
  even subtly undermined by the details, Luke concludes.
• 8:35
  Exactly. And the final piece of
• 8:37
  observational evidence in this first stage is just the order
• 8:39
  presented in Scripture. Think about Peter's sermon on
• 8:42
  Pentecost, Acts 2.38. The command is clear.
• 8:45
  Repent and be baptized, everyone of you.
• 8:48
  Repentance is a conscious act, right?
• 8:50
  A turning from sin, a turning towards God.
• 8:52
  The command puts repentance before baptism.
• 8:55
  That order seems significant. You can't really repent after
• 8:58
  you've already been baptized as an infant.
• 9:00
  So you've got the pattern of believers being baptized, the
• 9:03
  absence of explicit infant examples, a counter to the
• 9:06
  household assumption based on narrative details, and the
• 9:08
  repent then be baptized order. Why then does the author still
• 9:12
  classify this stage 1 evidence as only suggestive, not
• 9:15
  compelling? If it all points one way, why
• 9:17
  isn't that enough? Well, the limitation is
• 9:19
  important. Observational evidence is good,
• 9:22
  but it usually can't rule out possibilities completely.
• 9:25
  The fact that we don't have a recorded infant baptism doesn't
• 9:28
  absolutely prove it never happened or wasn't allowed.
• 9:31
  Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, as they
• 9:33
  say. Plus, as the author
• 9:35
  acknowledges, Peter's command in Acts 2 was given to a crowd of
• 9:38
  adults hearing the gospel for the first time.
• 9:41
  It was a specific missionary context.
• 9:44
  You could argue, maybe, that the command repent and be baptized
• 9:47
  applies primarily to those initial adult converts and
• 9:50
  doesn't necessarily address what happens with children born later
• 9:53
  into Christian families. The argument needs more
• 9:55
  substance than just observation. OK, so that naturally leads us
• 9:59
  into stage 2, which the author calls adolescence reasoning.
• 10:03
  This sounds like it should be more developed, moving beyond
• 10:05
  just observing the examples of baptism to digging into the
• 10:08
  Bible's explicit teaching about what baptism actually means.
• 10:12
  This stage seems to rely more on exposition on texts that
• 10:15
  directly link baptism to personal, individual faith.
• 10:18
  That's the idea Stage two tries to demonstrate that baptism,
• 10:22
  according to his New Testament definition, is inherently an act
• 10:26
  tied to personal faith. If that link can be established
• 10:29
  definitionally, then it structurally excludes anyone
• 10:32
  incapable of exercising that faith, like an infant.
• 10:35
  Let's go back to Colossians 2.12.
• 10:38
  We talked about the burial imagery for the mode, but the
• 10:41
  source highlights the faith element here too.
• 10:44
  Yes, Paul writes that believers were buried with him in baptism,
• 10:48
  in which you were also raised with him through faith in the
• 10:50
  working of God. See, the text doesn't just
• 10:53
  describe the picture burial and resurrection, it specifies the
• 10:56
  means by which that spiritual reality happens in connection
• 10:59
  with baptism through faith. So if the spiritual experience
• 11:02
  linked to the ordinance is activated or accessed by the
• 11:05
  recipients faith, then the argument is that the ordinance
• 11:07
  shouldn't be given to someone who doesn't have that faith.
• 11:10
  Baptism, then, is understood as the outward sign or expression
• 11:13
  of the faith that's already present in the individual.
• 11:16
  Yeah, that's a strong connection.
• 11:17
  And this leads us to the passage.
• 11:19
  The source is called the nearest approach to a definition of
• 11:22
  baptism that the NT affords. That's first Peter 3.21.
• 11:25
  This first becomes a real cornerstone for the Stage 2
• 11:28
  argument. Peter writes baptism, which
• 11:31
  corresponds to this. Now saves you.
• 11:33
  Now right away that phrase baptism saves you can sound
• 11:37
  alarming. The source notes it often makes
• 11:39
  people uncomfortable. Sounds maybe like baptismal
• 11:42
  regeneration or sacramentalism, like the water itself saves.
• 11:45
  But Peter immediately qualifies it, doesn't he?
• 11:47
  That's crucial, he says. It saves you, not as a removal
• 11:49
  of dirt from the body. Exactly.
• 11:51
  He explicitly denies it's about a physical washing or some
• 11:54
  magical effect of the water. Instead, he says baptism saves
• 11:58
  you as an appeal to God for a good conscience.
• 12:01
  The sources interpret this word appeal.
• 12:04
  Sometimes it's translated pledge or inquiry as the cry of faith
• 12:07
  to God. So in this understanding,
• 12:10
  baptism is that outward physical appeal to God which corresponds
• 12:14
  to and flows from the inner reality of faith seeking a clear
• 12:18
  conscience through Christ. It saves in the sense that it's
• 12:22
  the God ordained expression of the faith that justifies.
• 12:25
  The power is in the faith expressed, not the water itself.
• 12:28
  So the ordinance is only connected to salvation because
• 12:31
  it's the outward expression of the inward faith that truly
• 12:33
  saves. And clearly an infant cannot
• 12:35
  make that conscious appeal to God for a good conscience.
• 12:38
  This seems like a very powerful point on its own.
• 12:40
  It certainly felt powerful enough to the author at one
• 12:43
  point to be the main pillar of his argument.
• 12:45
  And this is where that interesting anecdote comes in.
• 12:47
  The source mentions A2 man debate back in 1973, held in a
• 12:50
  monastery in the Bavarian Alps South of Munich.
• 12:53
  The debate was with a respected Lutheran professor, Leonhard
• 12:56
  Gobbled. OK, paint the picture for us.
• 12:59
  This sounds like a scene from a movie Theology in the Alps.
• 13:02
  Right. You imagine this quiet old world
• 13:04
  setting 1973. The focus of the debate was
• 13:07
  precisely this. Is prior faith necessary for
• 13:10
  baptism? The author was relying heavily
• 13:13
  on Colossians 2.12 through faith, and especially first
• 13:16
  Peter 3.21 appeal to God. He felt these texts clearly
• 13:20
  linked baptism to the individual's conscious response.
• 13:23
  But Professor Goblet came back hard, focusing on Romans 6.111,
• 13:27
  that passage about being buried and raised with Christ through
• 13:30
  baptism and to death. OK.
• 13:31
  And what was Goblet's key point using Romans 6 against the
• 13:34
  necessity of prior faith? Goblet's challenge was this.
• 13:37
  He pointed out that Paul discusses the meaning of
• 13:40
  baptism, union with Christ in death, burial, resurrection
• 13:44
  throughout verses 1 to 10 of Romans 6.
• 13:47
  But Gopalt noted the word faith doesn't actually appear in
• 13:50
  connection with the believers response until verse 11.
• 13:53
  So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive
• 13:57
  to God in Christ Jesus so gobbled argued.
• 14:00
  See the essential meaning of baptism unit with Christ's death
• 14:03
  and resurrection is conveyed by the ACT itself described in
• 14:06
  verses 110 before faith is mentioned in verse 11.
• 14:10
  He suggested this implied the meaning of benefit don't
• 14:12
  strictly depend on the recipients prior conscious
• 14:14
  faith, which could leave the door open for infant baptism
• 14:18
  where the child receives the benefits through the parents
• 14:20
  covenant standing in his Lutheran view.
• 14:22
  So Gobbelt managed to kind of blunt the force of the argument
• 14:25
  from Colossians and first Peter by using Romans 6.
• 14:29
  He showed that at least one major passage discusses baptisms
• 14:32
  meaning without explicitly tying it to prior faith.
• 14:34
  In the immediate context, the author admits Romans 6 wasn't
• 14:37
  decisive for his view on faith. Right, Even if it's suggested,
• 14:40
  immersion is the mode. Exactly.
• 14:42
  The source acknowledges that even these really strong texts
• 14:45
  from stage 2 Colossians 2.2 and First Peter 3.21, they leave a
• 14:50
  potential gap. They work perfectly for the
• 14:52
  missionary setting for adults converting and needing to
• 14:55
  confess their newfound faith. But Gobbles challenge showed
• 14:58
  they didn't completely shut down the possibility of say, A2 track
• 15:02
  system believer baptism for converts, but maybe paid a
• 15:06
  baptism for infants born into Christian homes based on a
• 15:09
  different principle like the covenant.
• 15:11
  I see. So that inadequacy, that
• 15:12
  remaining gap, must have pushed the author to realize the issue
• 15:16
  wasn't just about finding the right proof text.
• 15:18
  The problem might lie in the overall theological framework,
• 15:21
  which explains why this is called adolescence reasoning.
• 15:23
  It's strong, it's developed, but maybe not fully mature in its
• 15:26
  foundations yet. It forces a move to the final
• 15:29
  stage. Yes, Stage 3 represents that
• 15:32
  move to intellectual maturity, focusing on the foundational
• 15:34
  structure. This stage shifts away from
• 15:37
  debating individual texts in isolation, like the back and
• 15:40
  forth of Roman 6, and tackles the big picture, the
• 15:43
  relationship between the old and new covenants.
• 15:46
  The author states very clearly that in his view, the defense of
• 15:49
  believer baptism is ultimately won or lost.
• 15:52
  Right here on how you understand the continuity and discontinuity
• 15:56
  between the covenants. OK, now this is where it gets
• 15:58
  really fundamental, as you said, because this is where the WCF
• 16:01
  position and the believer baptism position diverged, not
• 16:04
  just on practice, but on how they understand the very nature
• 16:07
  of God's people after Christ. Hashtag tag Tag a The Pedo
• 16:11
  Baptist justification continuity.
• 16:13
  The Pedo Baptist argument, as represented in the sources and
• 16:16
  common understanding, is grounded in theological
• 16:18
  continuity. The justification for baptizing
• 16:21
  infants, often as the source puts it, hangs on the fact that
• 16:24
  baptism is the New Testament counterpart of circumcision.
• 16:27
  Right. The logic is, if God's covenant
• 16:30
  structure remains fundamentally the same across the Testaments,
• 16:33
  just with different outward signs, then the sign of memory
• 16:36
  that should apply similarly. Precisely the argument which you
• 16:40
  find articulated in historic Reformed documents like the
• 16:43
  Heidelberg Catechism goes something like this.
• 16:46
  Infants of believers belong to the covenant and people of God,
• 16:49
  just like their parents did in the Old Testament.
• 16:52
  They're included in God's promise of redemption and the
• 16:54
  Holy Spirit. Therefore, just as infants
• 16:56
  receive the old Covenant sign circumcision, infants of
• 17:00
  believers should receive the New Covenant sign baptism, which
• 17:03
  replaces circumcision. This view really prioritizes the
• 17:06
  unbroken line of God's redemptive plan, seeing the
• 17:09
  Church as in significant sense the continuation and fulfillment
• 17:12
  of Israel. The Old Covenant people.
• 17:14
  Hashtaghtag be the Believer. Baptism response discontinuity.
• 17:19
  OK, so that's the continuity argument.
• 17:20
  Now how does the believer baptism position respond?
• 17:23
  According to these sources, it seems they must emphasize the
• 17:26
  differences Christ brought. That's exactly it.
• 17:28
  The argument from the believer baptism perspective, as laid out
• 17:31
  here, is that the traditional Reform view sometimes
• 17:34
  underestimated the degree of discontinuity introduced by
• 17:37
  Christ in the New Covenant. This isn't about throwing out
• 17:40
  the Old Testament, not at all. It's about reading the entire
• 17:43
  story, including the covenants, through the lens of Christ's
• 17:46
  fulfillment and the new reality he inaugurated.
• 17:50
  This shift in perspective is seen as critical.
• 17:52
  So what specifically changed regarding covenant membership?
• 17:56
  The absolute core change, according to this view, is the
• 18:00
  basis for membership in God's covenant people under the Old
• 18:03
  Covenant. How did you get in?
• 18:05
  Primarily by physical birth, Membership was largely
• 18:08
  determined by natural descent from Abraham, and the sign
• 18:11
  circumcision was applied based on that physical relationship.
• 18:14
  It marks you as part of the physical National Covenant
• 18:16
  people. OK, entry by genetics
• 18:18
  essentially. Largely, yes.
• 18:20
  But the New covenant, this argument contends, fundamentally
• 18:23
  redefines who constitutes the people of God.
• 18:26
  Entry into the New Covenant is now defined exclusively by
• 18:29
  spiritual birth, by regeneration, the work of the
• 18:31
  Holy Spirit creating new life within.
• 18:34
  Therefore, the sign of this new covenant baptism must reflect
• 18:38
  this new, exclusively spiritual basis for membership.
• 18:41
  It signifies a spiritual reality, not a physical lineage.
• 18:45
  This means the parents spiritual status, while obviously hugely
• 18:48
  significant for raising a child in the faith, no longer
• 18:51
  automatically confers covenant membership onto the infant in
• 18:53
  the way physical descent did in the Old covenant.
• 18:56
  That distinction makes the question of New covenant
• 18:58
  identity absolutely crucial. How does the New Testament
• 19:01
  itself define who belongs to the New Covenant people?
• 19:04
  It defines them quite simply as those who know the Lord
• 19:07
  personally and savingly. The key text here is Hebrews
• 19:10
  8.11 which is quoted the Great New Covenant prophecy from
• 19:14
  Jeremiah 31.34. What does it say about the
• 19:17
  members of this new covenant? They shall not teach each one
• 19:21
  his neighbor and each one his brother, saying know the Lord,
• 19:24
  for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the
• 19:27
  greatest. The implication drawn from this
• 19:30
  is revolutionary. If all members of the New
• 19:32
  Covenant truly know the Lord, then the New Covenant community
• 19:35
  is by definition a regenerate community.
• 19:39
  Unlike Old Testament Israel, which was a mixed body
• 19:41
  containing both believers and unbelievers who are members
• 19:44
  simply by birthright, the New Covenant people are
• 19:46
  characterized universally by this personal knowledge of God.
• 19:49
  OK, so if membership in the New Covenant itself is restricted to
• 19:53
  those who are regenerate, those who know the Lord, then it
• 19:55
  follows that an infant who cannot yet know the Lord in that
• 19:58
  saving way or profess that knowledge simply doesn't meet
• 20:01
  the criteria for receiving the sign of that membership.
• 20:04
  That's the logical conclusion from that understanding of
• 20:06
  covenant discontinuity. It fundamentally changes the
• 20:09
  requirements for belonging, and the sources point to Paul's
• 20:13
  arguments in Galatians and Romans to back this up.
• 20:16
  This redefinition of who the true children of Abraham are,
• 20:19
  Galatians 3.7, is explicit. Know then, that it is those of
• 20:24
  faith who are the sons of Abraham.
• 20:26
  It's about spiritual lineage through faith, not physical
• 20:28
  descent. And Romans 9 reinforces that
• 20:31
  discontinuity pretty strongly too, doesn't it?
• 20:33
  Verses 7 and 8 say not all are children of Abraham because they
• 20:36
  are his offspring. And crucially, it is not the
• 20:39
  children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the
• 20:41
  children of the promise are counted as offspring.
• 20:44
  That seems to directly challenge the idea of automatic inclusion
• 20:48
  based on parentage that underpins the continuity
• 20:50
  argument for infant baptism. It appears to it forces a
• 20:54
  distinction. The children of the flesh,
• 20:57
  physical descendants are not automatically the same as the
• 21:00
  children of God or children of the promise.
• 21:03
  That is defined by spiritual birth and faith.
• 21:06
  The conclusion drawn is that the true heirs of Abraham's covenant
• 21:09
  blessings and their ultimate new covenant fulfillment are those
• 21:12
  who share the faith of Abraham. So there it is, the absolute
• 21:15
  core difference laid bare in Stage 3.
• 21:17
  The beetle Baptist view emphasizes the continuity of the
• 21:20
  covenant people and the covenant sign across both Testaments.
• 21:23
  Well, the believer baptism view, as argued here, emphasizes A
• 21:26
  decisive discontinuity in the nature of covenant membership
• 21:29
  itself, shifting from a mixed community entered by physical
• 21:32
  birth to a regenerate community entered only by spiritual birth
• 21:35
  and faith. And that's precisely why the
• 21:37
  author identifies this Stage 3 as the make or break issue.
• 21:41
  It's interesting to trace the author's own reported
• 21:43
  intellectual development here. He mentions that in the 1973
• 21:47
  debate with Gottpelt, he was primarily relying on Stage 2
• 21:50
  arguments, the expositional text like First Peter 3.21.
• 21:55
  But he found that Gottpelt's critique using Romans 6 based on
• 21:58
  a covenantal framework, even if Lutheran, showed the limits of
• 22:01
  just relying on those texts. It wasn't until later, around
• 22:05
  1980, when he was teaching membership classes at Bethlehem
• 22:07
  Baptist Church in Minneapolis, that he realized he needed to
• 22:10
  fully ground the argument in Stage 3 in the discontinuity of
• 22:14
  the covenants to provide a comprehensive and stable defense
• 22:17
  against the Pedo Baptist Covenantal argument.
• 22:20
  That's fascinating. His own path seems to mirror the
• 22:22
  three stages he lays out, moving from observation to specific
• 22:26
  text analysis, and finally landing on the foundational
• 22:29
  covenant structure. Hashtag tag tag check.
• 22:31
  See summary of the three stages. Yeah, just to quickly recap that
• 22:34
  progression for clarity. Stage 1 was the observational
• 22:36
  level. Looking at the Bible stories,
• 22:38
  the pattern seems to be repent, believe, then be baptized.
• 22:42
  It's suggestive. Stage 2 was the expositional
• 22:45
  level, digging into what key verses say baptism means.
• 22:48
  Colossians 2 and 1st Pier 3 three seem to demand personal
• 22:51
  faith, defining baptism as faith's outward appeal.
• 22:55
  It feels compelling. And stage 3 the covenant a level
• 22:58
  arguing that the very nature of the new covenant community
• 23:00
  defined by spiritual birth and knowing the Lord, not physical
• 23:03
  descent requires that it's sign baptism be administered only to
• 23:07
  those who give evidence of that spiritual reality that you
• 23:09
  believers and this for the author became decisive hashtag
• 23:12
  tag tag Ivy final take away and reflection.
• 23:15
  So what the sources really demonstrate is this ongoing task
• 23:18
  in theology, isn't it? It requires, on the one hand, a
• 23:21
  deep and genuine respect for historic creeds like
• 23:24
  Westminster's Confession. These truly are magnificent
• 23:27
  summaries of biblical truth. But on the other hand, it also
• 23:30
  requires holding even those venerable statements open to
• 23:33
  continual refinement and critique based on our best
• 23:36
  understanding of Scripture, especially the specific shape of
• 23:38
  the New Covenant and how the New Testament describes God's
• 23:41
  people. Now, the ultimate goal from the
• 23:43
  perspective laid out in these sources is to really clarify and
• 23:46
  uphold the full meaning of baptism by getting both The Who
• 23:49
  and the how right according to the New Testament's terms.
• 23:52
  Right. So for you listening, whether
• 23:54
  you come from an infant baptizing tradition or a
• 23:56
  believer baptizing 1, what does this deep dive really boil down
• 24:01
  to? It seems the fundamental
• 24:02
  difference between these two reformed positions hinges almost
• 24:05
  entirely on how much continuity versus discontinuity you see
• 24:09
  between the Old covenant people and sign Israel's circumcision
• 24:12
  and the New covenant people on sign the church baptism.
• 24:16
  Do you emphasize the continuity, seeing the church as the direct
• 24:20
  continuation of the covenant people, receiving a sign that
• 24:22
  applies generationally based on family inclusion?
• 24:25
  Or do you emphasize the discontinuity, seeing the
• 24:28
  arrival of Christ as marking A radical shift, defining the true
• 24:31
  covenant people now solely by spiritual birth and personal
• 24:34
  faith? Your answer to that question
• 24:36
  really determines your view of baptism.
• 24:38
  It's arguably the most basic question underlying the whole
• 24:40
  debate. If you lean towards continuity,
• 24:43
  your understanding of church membership will likely include
• 24:45
  infants based on their parents faith and covenant standing.
• 24:49
  If you lean towards discontinuity, your
• 24:51
  understanding of church membership will require evidence
• 24:54
  of personal regeneration and faith before administering the
• 24:57
  sign. The whole disagreement flows
• 25:00
  from how radically you believe the coming of Christ reshaped
• 25:02
  the definition of God's people. And it's interesting how the
• 25:05
  source material tracks the author's own shift in emphasis.
• 25:08
  He relied heavily on the meaning of specific texts.
• 25:11
  Stage 2 in that 1973 debate. But by 1980 he felt the
• 25:15
  covenantal argument, Stage 3, focusing on the nature of the
• 25:18
  new covenant community in Galatians and Hebrews, was the
• 25:20
  necessary foundation. The argument itself matured.
• 25:25
  Which brings us to maybe a final thought for you to ponder as you
• 25:28
  process this. If the real crux of the issue
• 25:31
  lies in stage 3 in understanding the covenantal structure, think
• 25:35
  about the discussions happening today about baptism.
• 25:37
  When you hear people debating this or read books on it, where
• 25:40
  is their main focus? Are they still primarily arguing
• 25:44
  about the examples in Acts of the meaning of baptizo stage
• 25:46
  one? Are they focused mainly on
• 25:48
  interpreting passages like thirst, Peter 3.21 or Romans 6
• 25:52
  stage 2? Or are they grounding their
• 25:55
  arguments primarily in the nature of the new covenant as
• 25:57
  described in Hebrews 8 or the identity of Abraham's children
• 26:00
  according to Galatians 3 CS 3? Where is the weight of the
• 26:03
  argument being placed. That's a great point.
• 26:05
  It suggests that maybe the most productive conversations, the
• 26:08
  ones that get to the root, need to grapple with that bigger
• 26:11
  covenantal picture, not just stay on the level of debating
• 26:14
  specific verses in isolation. It's about seeing how the pieces
• 26:17
  fit into the whole structure of God's plan.
• 26:20
  Fascinating stuff.