THE CREDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT & REFUTATION
I have heard many covenantal credobaptist brothers (one of which is James White) argue that Acts 2:38-39 is not a valid verse for the paedobaptist camp exegetically. The main argument that is used is that Peter is speaking to the same crowd who had just cried out for the crucifixion of Christ saying: "Let his blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). As convincing as this may sound to the average reader of the scriptures, we must wonder if it holds up to the actual intention of the author of the book of Acts; Luke. The first question that comes to mind is this: "If Luke intended to mean that Peter is referring back to the events of Matthew 27:25, don't you think he would have mentioned those same events in his gospel?" What I mean is this: Luke is writing to Theophilus on the account of Christ and of the early church after the resurrection and ascension. The first account being the gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4) and the second account being the book of Acts (Acts 1:1-3). If I were Theophilus (if he was a single person; scolars debate whether it was a single person or a group of people), I would not think: "Ah, he must be referring to the gospel written by Matthew." The fact of the matter is that Luke, in his gospel, never makes mention of the crowds screaming for the shedding of Christ's blood to be upon them and their children. And we know that since Luke wrote these two accounts intending for them to be read back to back, he cannot be possibly referring to the events of Matthew 27:25. Therefore, Acts 2:38-39 is not to be read in the way that covenantal baptists would interpret it in referrencing Matthew 27:25.
One might reply: "But verse 36 mentions that Peter is talking to the people that crucified Christ when Peter says 'whom you crucified.'" But I would simply respond that the whole verse be looked at for it says:
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Peter is addressing all Israel. Jesus even said that He came for the lost sheep of Israel (Luke 24:21/Matthew 15:24). Paul made it a custom to speak first at the synagogues when he went to evangelize a city (Acts 13:46/Acts 17:2,11). Paul says that the Gospel is to the Jew first (Rom. 1:16). Therefore, Peter is not talking to merely the Israelites that were there shouting for the crucifixion of Christ, rather, he is speaking to Israel as a whole as having crucified Christ by their rejection of Him (Acts 4:8-12/Luke 20:9-19).
THE PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT
How then ought Acts 2:38-39 be read? First notice that after Peter has already preached the Gospel to the crowd of Jews, he says "Repent and be baptized." The mention of baptism is particularly important. He continues saying: "every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." It is of the utmost importance that we notice that the gospel and baptism are synonymous. Where the Gospel is found; there too is baptism. And, just as we repent and believe in the name of Jesus Christ, so too are we also baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. At this point, Baptists might argue that baptism is only for those who believe for Peter is calling the crowd to repent first then be baptized. This is easily refuted by the simple fact that Peter is talking to adults. Peter continues on saying:"The promise is for you..." which means them, the Jews; "and your children..." meaning just that, their immediate children and descendents; "and for all who are far off..." meaning the unconverted pagan gentiles.
Covenant Theology and The Promise
Before I go any further, I want to focus on the concept of the promise. In context, this promise is the promise of the Gospel which, as already established earlier, is accompanied by the sign of baptism. Therefore, baptism is the sign of this promise. Now we know as Protestants, that the Gospel is not conditional but is given by God's grace. The Gospel is not conditional but rather unconditional and therefore, is a promise of grace.
There is another example of a promise in the book of Genesis that came with a sign as well. This promise (also called covenant) was made with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17). The sign of this covenant that God made with Abraham was circumcision (Gen. 17:11) of which corresponds with baptism in the new covenant (Col. 2:11). As Reformed Covenantal Christians, we know that the Abrahamic covenant falls under the category of the Covenant of Grace which was begun in Gen. 3:15 (the Seed Promise) directly after the Fall. Christ and the Gospel are the fulfillment of the Seed Promise and a continuation of the Abrahamic Promise for God says to Abraham: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendents after you for the generations to come..." (Gen. 17:7). Paul reaffirms this in Galatians 3:6-9,14. In Gal. 3:14, we see that the promise given to Abraham is continued through Christ. Many covenantal Baptists err in their theology by saying that circumcision was just a sign for the NATION of Israel and not the Church in Israel. But they are both one in the same (for Charles Hodge's argument, click here and read his third proposition). Paul says in Romans 9:6b-7a:
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."
This can be simply interpreted as: "Not all who are God's covenant people are God's elect people" (Lee Irons). Was not all of Israel under the covenant? Had not all of Israel recieved the sign of the covenant which was circumcision? In order to be in Israel and the Church, one had to partake of the sign of the covenant or they were cut off from God and his people (Gen. 17:14). Thus, we can see Paul making a clear distinction between the Visible Church (from Israel) and the Invisible Church (Israel). Did not Christ affirm this distinction in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30 and explained in Matt. 13:36-43) and the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22)? Therefore, there will always be unregenerate people within the Visible Church who are not known to be unregenerate but yet have the sign of the covenant.
What then of this Covenant of Grace which started after the Fall (Gen. 3:15); was reaffirmed and built upon with Abraham (Gen. 12,15,17); and was fulfilled and continues through Christ (Gal. 3:29)? It is the same. Those in the Old Testament were not saved by the works of the Law but rather, by believing in the promise. How then are we in a "New Covenant?" The covenant is new in that the Mosaic Administration (i.e. atonement through animal sacrifices, festivals, etc.) has ceased for it has been fulfilled in Christ (*it is important to note that the Moral aspects of the Law or "Natural Law" has not ceased but continues for the condemnation of the wicked outside of Christ*). The covenant made with Israel at Sinai rather, was a republication of the Covenant of Works given to Adam in the garden before the Fall (click here to learn more about republication). I once heard a credobaptist friend say that the covenant was new in that it only consists of the elect. Nonsense! Did God suddenly change His mind in that covenants now consist of individuals rather than consisting of families as in the Old Testament? In no way! We hear of households in the New Testament being baptized after the head of that household has been converted (for arguments concerning this subject, either buy the book "Infant Baptism in the first Four Centuries" by Joachim Jeremias or click here to read about the Oikos Formula). But, just as the Covenant of Grace has remained the same, the signs have changed. As circumcision was the sign given to Abraham and his children, of the coming seed and sinified a cutting off of sin; so now baptism has been instituted by Christ Himself (Matthew 28:19) and as Heidelberg 69 says:
How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by His blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
The Baptist now may say: "You affirm my point! Only those who believe and have faith may be baptized." I say: "Wrong!" If the New Covenant is a continuation of the Abrahamic Promise (Covenant of Grace) as I have proved scripturally (Gal. 3:17-18, 29), then, we as well, ought to baptize our infants as a sign of this New Covenant. Did not Christ even say: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14)?
AND NOW BACK TO THE TEXT (ACTS 2:39)As you can see, I have gone away from the text for awhile in order to explain a little Covenant Theology to prove my point. We now come to: "for all whom the Lord our God will call." I have heard the accusation, from Baptists, that we quote this out of context saying how, when we site this text as a proof text, we stop after children. Then Baptists will quote the part "for all whom the Lord our God wil call" as if to seal the deal that we are misquoting this text and it better proves their argument. Once again: "Wrong!" All this time going off to Covenant Theology (or Biblical Theology) was not for nothing. Those whom God calls recieve the Gospel and if they have children; they are to be baptized. For just as Paul affirms that we are children of Abraham by faith, we must also baptize our children as Abraham circumcised his. It is the same Covenant of Grace. The New Testament does not omit the baptizing of infants. The Baptists say that they are staying faithful to the immediate text but we paedobaptists, in this case, remain faithful to the text, the whole of the text which is Biblical Theology and the unfolding story of Redemption within the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment