"Credo or Paedo
Baptism?"
June 26, 2011
Senior Pastor Dr.
David Craig
|
||||
Date: June 26, 2011 - WEFC
Sermon Title: "Credo or Paedo Baptism?" - Sermon 25 of Colossians Series
Text: Colossians 2 : 11 - 13
Sermon Notes for
"Credo or Paedo Baptism?"
( Click here to download or open the Word
document file for these notes. )
Credo or Paedo Baptism
Credo or Paedo Baptism?
–
Colossians 2:11-13 - June 26, 2011 - Dr. David P.
Craig
(11) In him you were circumcised with a circumcision
made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ. (12) having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also
raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him
from the dead. (13) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven
us all our trespasses,
Some Observations About
Circumcision:
1)
Physical circumcision was the
token or seal of the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed. It was the
distinctive sign, the ethnic badge, so to speak, of an Israelite in covenant relationship
with Yahweh. But it was always intended to symbolize an inward,
altogether spiritual cleansing and purification
from sin.
2)
When Paul declares that we "were
circumcised" (v. 11a), I'm inclined to believe he is referring to
our conversion. In other words, we experienced a spiritual
circumcision of the heart at the time of our regeneration. This
is what Paul had in view in Romans 2:28-29 where he said that true circumcision
is not "outward and physical" (v. 28) but is "a matter of the
heart, by the Spirit" (v. 29). See also 2 Corinthians 3:3 and
Philippians 3:3.
3)
It's possible, however, that Paul
is referring to our identification with Christ in his death
on the cross. On this view, to say "you were circumcised"
would be another way of declaring, in obviously metaphorical language,
"you died." When Christ died, when he experienced
"circumcision" by the stripping away of his physical body in death,
we died.
4)
Paul describes this circumcision
as one that is "made without hands" (acheiropoietos).
This word was typically used in the New Testament to contrast what is made by
humans with what is made by God. It also points to the contrast
between the external material aspects of the old order of Judaism under
the Mosaic covenant and the internal spiritual efficacy of the new order
under the New covenant (Mk. 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24; Heb. 9:11,24).
5)
Paul’s point is that the
circumcision performed in the flesh with human hands is no longer the
real or spiritually meaningful circumcision (note especially Galatians 5:6
– "for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means
anything, but faith working through love").
6)
When Paul then refers to "the
circumcision of Christ" at the conclusion of v. 11, he does not mean his
circumcision as a Jewish infant of eight days (cf. Luke 2:21), but has in view
the literal death of Christ. In other words, Paul envisions the
crucifixion itself as a circumcision.
7)
It is not by "human
hands" (whether our effort, good intentions, or a reformed life)
but by the Spirit of God that our hearts have been circumcised and
renewed and regenerated unto life eternal.
Some Observations About
Credo (“Faith or Belief” Preceding) Baptism:
1) In every New Testament command
and instance of baptism the requirement of faith precedes baptism.
So infants incapable of faith are not to be baptized.
2) There are no explicit
instances of infant baptism in the entire Bible. In the three
"household baptisms" mentioned (household of Lydia, Acts 16:15; household of the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:30–33; household of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians
1:16) no mention is made
of infants, and in the case of the Philippian jailer, Luke says explicitly,
"they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in
his house" (Acts 16:32), implying that the household who were baptized could
understand the Word.
3) Paul (in Colossians 2:12) explicitly defined baptism as an act
done through faith: ". . . having been buried with Him in
baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working
of God." In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith—your own
faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith"—if it is
not an outward expression of inward faith—it is not baptism.
4) The apostle Peter, in his first
letter, defined baptism this way, ". . . not the removal of dirt from the
flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is "an appeal to God for a good
conscience." It is an outward act and expression of inner
confession and prayer to God for cleansing, that the one being baptized
does, not his parents.
5) When the New Testament church
debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers
as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire
debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the
place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of
circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well
as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to
develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But
it is not even mentioned.
Some Observations About
Paedo (Infant) Baptism:
9) Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the
uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS
RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10) How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or
uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11) and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal
of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he
might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that
righteousness might be credited to them, 12) and the father of circumcision to
those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of
the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. - Romans 4:9-12
So, even though circumcision is described
by Paul as a sign and seal of Abraham's righteousness of faith, it was to be
given to his infant sons, and their sons, and even to their servants who were
not Jews by birth.
So, if circumcision can be a sign of faith
and righteousness, and still be given to all the male children of the
Israelites (who don't yet have faith for themselves), then why should not
baptism be given to the children of Christians even though it is a sign of
faith and righteousness (which they don't yet have)?
The main problem with this argument
is a wrong assumption about the similarity between the people of God in the Old
Testament and the people of God today. It assumes that the way God gathered his covenant people, Israel, in
the Old Testament and the way he is gathering his covenant people, the Church,
today is so similar that the different signs of the covenant (baptism and
circumcision) can be administered in the same way to both peoples. This is a
mistaken assumption.
There are differences between the
new covenant people called the Church and the old covenant people called Israel. And these differences explain why it was fitting to
give the old covenant sign of circumcision to the infants of Israel, and why it
is not fitting to give the new covenant sign of baptism to the infants of the
Church.
In other words, even though there is an
overlap in meaning between baptism and circumcision (seen in Romans 4:11), circumcision and baptism don't have the same
role to play in the covenant people of God because the way God constituted his
people in the Old Testament and the way he is constituting the Church today are
fundamentally different.
Paul makes this plain in several places.
Let's look at two of them. Turn with me to Romans 9:6–8:
(6) But it is not as though the word of God has
failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (7) nor are
they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through
Isaac [not Ishmael] your descendants will be named." (8) That is, it is
not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the
promise are regarded as descendants.
What's relevant in this text for our
purpose is that there were two "Israel’s": a physical Israel
and a spiritual Israel. Verse 6b: "They are not all Israel
[i.e., true spiritual Israel] who are descended from Israel [i.e., physical,
religious Israel]." Yet God ordained that the whole, larger,
physical, religious, national people of Israel be known as his covenant people
and receive the sign of the covenant and the outward blessings of the
covenant—such as the promised land (Genesis 17:8).
The covenant people in the Old Testament
were mixed. They were all physical Israelites who were circumcised, but
within that national-ethnic group there was a remnant of the true Israel, the
true children of God (verse 8). This is the way God designed it to be:
he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave
them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that
ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.
How Is the Church a Continuation of
Israel?
Now the question for us is: is the New
Testament Church—the Church today—a continuation of the larger mixed group of
ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is the Church a continuation of the
remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ?
Are we a Spirit-born, new covenant community with the law of God written on our
hearts and defined by faith? We don't need to guess at this.
Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians
4:22–28:
(22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one
by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac,
born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the
flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you
brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise.
Now who is "you brethren"?
They are the Church. The Church is
not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like
Israel—a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The
Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse
28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
The people of the covenant in the Old
Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh—an ethnic, national,
religious people containing "children of the flesh" and
"children of God.” Therefore it was fitting that
circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
But the people of the new covenant,
called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different
way. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the
reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a
whole; it is a continuation of the true Israel, the remnant—not the children of
the flesh, but the children of promise.
Therefore, it is not fitting that the
children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant,
baptism.
The church is the new covenant
community—"This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)—we say when we take
communion. The new covenant is the spiritual work of God to put his
Spirit within us, write the law on our hearts, and cause us to walk in his
statutes. It is a spiritually authentic community. Unlike the old covenant
community it is defined by true spiritual life and faith.
Having these things is what it means to
belong to the Church. Therefore to give the sign of the covenant, baptism, to
those who are merely children of the flesh and who give no evidence of new
birth or the presence of the Spirit or the law written on their heart or of
vital faith in Christ is to contradict the meaning of the new covenant
community and to go backwards in redemptive history.
The Church is not a replay of
Israel. It is an advance on Israel. To
administer the sign of the covenant as though this advance has not happened is
a great mistake. We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not
because we don't love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity
and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing
church of the living Christ.
Some Important
Conclusions:
- Have you been washed by the
blood of the Lamb?
- Are your sins forgiven?
- Have you died with Christ
and risen by faith to walk in newness of life?
- Does the Spirit of Christ
dwell in you?
- Is the law being written on
your heart?
- Have you publicly professed
Jesus as your Lord and Savior through baptism, and thus glorified God's great
new covenant work in your life?
Because of Jesus the Alpha and the Omega, I
have been Baptized into God’s family, Circumcised spiritually,
the record of my sin Debt has been cancelled through Christ’s atoning
work I have Eternal life Freely by God’s Grace, I’m
standing in Holiness before His Holiness, Inheriting His
promises, I’m Justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness in exchange
for my sin, and a subject forever to the King of Kings and Lord of
Lord’s, I’m Loved with an everlasting love, receiving Mercy and
not what I deserve,
Never to
receive judgment, Only grace upon grace, Preserved by His Quintessential
Restoring and renewing Holy Spirit Thoroughly, Undeservedly,
and Victoriously, Won over without Xenophobia, but Yearningly,
and Zealously saved, safe, and secure because of God the Father electing
me, through faith in the person and work of His Son applied to me through the
regenerating and preserving power of the Holy Spirit.
( Click here to download or open the Word
document file for these notes. )
Credo or Paedo Baptism? –
Colossians 2:11-13 - June 26, 2011 - Dr. David P. Craig
(11) In him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. (12) having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (13) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Some Observations About Circumcision:
1) Physical circumcision was the token or seal of the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed. It was the distinctive sign, the ethnic badge, so to speak, of an Israelite in covenant relationship with Yahweh. But it was always intended to symbolize an inward, altogether spiritual cleansing and purification from sin.
2) When Paul declares that we "were circumcised" (v. 11a), I'm inclined to believe he is referring to our conversion. In other words, we experienced a spiritual circumcision of the heart at the time of our regeneration. This is what Paul had in view in Romans 2:28-29 where he said that true circumcision is not "outward and physical" (v. 28) but is "a matter of the heart, by the Spirit" (v. 29). See also 2 Corinthians 3:3 and Philippians 3:3.
3) It's possible, however, that Paul is referring to our identification with Christ in his death on the cross. On this view, to say "you were circumcised" would be another way of declaring, in obviously metaphorical language, "you died." When Christ died, when he experienced "circumcision" by the stripping away of his physical body in death, we died.
4) Paul describes this circumcision as one that is "made without hands" (acheiropoietos). This word was typically used in the New Testament to contrast what is made by humans with what is made by God. It also points to the contrast between the external material aspects of the old order of Judaism under the Mosaic covenant and the internal spiritual efficacy of the new order under the New covenant (Mk. 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24; Heb. 9:11,24).
5) Paul’s point is that the circumcision performed in the flesh with human hands is no longer the real or spiritually meaningful circumcision (note especially Galatians 5:6 – "for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love").
6) When Paul then refers to "the circumcision of Christ" at the conclusion of v. 11, he does not mean his circumcision as a Jewish infant of eight days (cf. Luke 2:21), but has in view the literal death of Christ. In other words, Paul envisions the crucifixion itself as a circumcision.
7) It is not by "human hands" (whether our effort, good intentions, or a reformed life) but by the Spirit of God that our hearts have been circumcised and renewed and regenerated unto life eternal.
Some Observations About Credo (“Faith or Belief” Preceding) Baptism:
1) In every New Testament command and instance of baptism the requirement of faith precedes baptism. So infants incapable of faith are not to be baptized.
2) There are no explicit instances of infant baptism in the entire Bible. In the three "household baptisms" mentioned (household of Lydia, Acts 16:15; household of the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:30–33; household of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 1:16) no mention is made of infants, and in the case of the Philippian jailer, Luke says explicitly, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (Acts 16:32), implying that the household who were baptized could understand the Word.
3) Paul (in Colossians 2:12) explicitly defined baptism as an act done through faith: ". . . having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God." In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith—your own faith, not your parents' faith. If it is not "through faith"—if it is not an outward expression of inward faith—it is not baptism.
4) The apostle Peter, in his first letter, defined baptism this way, ". . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience." It is an outward act and expression of inner confession and prayer to God for cleansing, that the one being baptized does, not his parents.
5) When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned.
Some Observations About Paedo (Infant) Baptism:
9) Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10) How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11) and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12) and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. - Romans 4:9-12
So, even though circumcision is described by Paul as a sign and seal of Abraham's righteousness of faith, it was to be given to his infant sons, and their sons, and even to their servants who were not Jews by birth.
So, if circumcision can be a sign of faith and righteousness, and still be given to all the male children of the Israelites (who don't yet have faith for themselves), then why should not baptism be given to the children of Christians even though it is a sign of faith and righteousness (which they don't yet have)?
The main problem with this argument is a wrong assumption about the similarity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God today. It assumes that the way God gathered his covenant people, Israel, in the Old Testament and the way he is gathering his covenant people, the Church, today is so similar that the different signs of the covenant (baptism and circumcision) can be administered in the same way to both peoples. This is a mistaken assumption.
There are differences between the new covenant people called the Church and the old covenant people called Israel. And these differences explain why it was fitting to give the old covenant sign of circumcision to the infants of Israel, and why it is not fitting to give the new covenant sign of baptism to the infants of the Church.
In other words, even though there is an overlap in meaning between baptism and circumcision (seen in Romans 4:11), circumcision and baptism don't have the same role to play in the covenant people of God because the way God constituted his people in the Old Testament and the way he is constituting the Church today are fundamentally different.
Paul makes this plain in several places. Let's look at two of them. Turn with me to Romans 9:6–8:
(6) But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (7) nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac [not Ishmael] your descendants will be named." (8) That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
What's relevant in this text for our purpose is that there were two "Israel’s": a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Verse 6b: "They are not all Israel [i.e., true spiritual Israel] who are descended from Israel [i.e., physical, religious Israel]." Yet God ordained that the whole, larger, physical, religious, national people of Israel be known as his covenant people and receive the sign of the covenant and the outward blessings of the covenant—such as the promised land (Genesis 17:8).
The covenant people in the Old Testament were mixed. They were all physical Israelites who were circumcised, but within that national-ethnic group there was a remnant of the true Israel, the true children of God (verse 8). This is the way God designed it to be: he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.
How Is the Church a Continuation of Israel?
Now the question for us is: is the New Testament Church—the Church today—a continuation of the larger mixed group of ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is the Church a continuation of the remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ? Are we a Spirit-born, new covenant community with the law of God written on our hearts and defined by faith? We don't need to guess at this.
Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians 4:22–28:
(22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise.
Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel—a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh—an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God.” Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is a continuation of the true Israel, the remnant—not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.
Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.
The church is the new covenant community—"This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)—we say when we take communion. The new covenant is the spiritual work of God to put his Spirit within us, write the law on our hearts, and cause us to walk in his statutes. It is a spiritually authentic community. Unlike the old covenant community it is defined by true spiritual life and faith.
Having these things is what it means to belong to the Church. Therefore to give the sign of the covenant, baptism, to those who are merely children of the flesh and who give no evidence of new birth or the presence of the Spirit or the law written on their heart or of vital faith in Christ is to contradict the meaning of the new covenant community and to go backwards in redemptive history.
The Church is not a replay of Israel. It is an advance on Israel. To administer the sign of the covenant as though this advance has not happened is a great mistake. We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not because we don't love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing church of the living Christ.
Some Important Conclusions:
- Have you been washed by the blood of the Lamb?
- Are your sins forgiven?
- Have you died with Christ and risen by faith to walk in newness of life?
- Does the Spirit of Christ dwell in you?
- Is the law being written on your heart?
- Have you publicly professed Jesus as your Lord and Savior through baptism, and thus glorified God's great new covenant work in your life?
Because of Jesus the Alpha and the Omega, I have been Baptized into God’s family, Circumcised spiritually, the record of my sin Debt has been cancelled through Christ’s atoning work I have Eternal life Freely by God’s Grace, I’m standing in Holiness before His Holiness, Inheriting His promises, I’m Justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness in exchange for my sin, and a subject forever to the King of Kings and Lord of Lord’s, I’m Loved with an everlasting love, receiving Mercy and not what I deserve,
Never to receive judgment, Only grace upon grace, Preserved by His Quintessential Restoring and renewing Holy Spirit Thoroughly, Undeservedly, and Victoriously, Won over without Xenophobia, but Yearningly, and Zealously saved, safe, and secure because of God the Father electing me, through faith in the person and work of His Son applied to me through the regenerating and preserving power of the Holy Spirit.
We are located at
3770 Highway 525
Greenbank, Washington
That is 2 miles south of Greenbank
and 6 miles north of Freeland by MAP.