Customer Reviews

The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a good introduction to someone wanting to learn about the Reformed view of baptism. There are some really good essays in this book and there are others that are mediocre. I will analyze it by each chapter and the contribution that each person makes to the debate.

Bryan Chapell "A Pasotoral Overciew of Infant Baptism" - This essay attempts to give readers an overview of a pastoral explanation of infant baptism. Instead of being rigorous exegetically and theologically, a practical explanation is given. It is a good practical explanation of the practice, but does lack the rigor of the other essays.

Daniel Doriani "Matthew 28:18-20 and the Institution of Baptism" - This essay is a good explanation of how the institution of baptism in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 does not preclude the baptism of infants. It is fairly rigorous in its exegesis, but it could have been better.

Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning "Unto You and to Your Children" - This was a good essay of a neglected text by Baptists, however it was very repetitive. It could have been better, though.

Jonathan Watt "The Oikos Formula" - This was a good essay on the nature of the household in the Jewish world. It goes over the linguistic usage of 'oikos' and all of its cognats in the New Testament. It was well written.

Mark Ross "Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals" - This was an essay designed to connect baptism as circumcision and what all they signify. Overall, it was fairly well written.

Joseph Pipa "The Mode of Baptism" - This essay was written to argue against a strict adherence to immersion as the proper mode of baptism. It was a very good essay and crushing in its conclusion. What is interesting as a side note, the ancestors of the Baptists, the Anabaptists, do not immerse, they pour.

Jeffrey Niell "The Newness of the New Covenant" - This was one of the best essays in the book. The price of the book is worth this essay alone. Niell delevers a crushing blow to the argument that the New Covenant precludes infants from partaking of the blessings and curses of the New Covenant.

Richard Pratt "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant" - This essay was also a heavy-hitter. Pratt and Niell do not totally agree, but I do think they compliment each other well. Pratt argues from a Redemptive-Historical perspective that the New Covenant will not be totally fullfilled until the Eschaton (i.e. an already/not yet schema). With this, I heartily agree.

Randy Booth "Covenant Transition" - This is another hard-hitting essay. Booth argues that the New Covenant is the same covenant as the old, with the only difference that we now do not have to rely on bloddy sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, but Christ paid that once for all.

Corelis Venema "Covenant Theology and Baptism" - This was a good article on classical covenantal theology and is very helpful.

Lyle Bierma "Infant Baptism in the Reformed Confessions" - This essay was incredible. Bierma is one of my favorite historians. This goes over all of the major confessions and catechisms of Reformed Theology. He does a great job to show how that the Reformed had to argue against Anabaptism during the Reformation and their offspring the English Baptists thereafter.

Peter Liethart "Infant Baptism in History: An Unfinished Tragicomedy" - This essay is also incredible. Of course, Peter Leithart is an incredible writer. He relates literary theory to the topic of infant baptism. He even admits that while the early church practiced infant baptism, they were often very inconsistent in their practice. Until Augustine, this was the case. This was a terrific essay.

Gregg Strawbridge "The Polemics of Anabaptism from the Reformation Onward" - This essay was an incredible essay and shows that Baptists, while definitely presenting a cogent argument, cannot stand up to the apostasy/warning passages in the New Testament. His introductory essay was also incredible.

Douglas Wilson "Baptism and Children: Their Place in the Old and New Testaments" - This was also a terrific essay and places the issue where the key question remains: the view of our children.

R.C. Sproul Jr. "In Jesus' Name, Amen" - This was also a very well written essay and gives another argument that most Baptists avoid, namely that they have people who received the covenant sign, and yet still fall away. They cannot explain this, since the visible church is supposed to be pure. Another excellent argument.

Overall this work was well-written and deserves to be read.

Here's a short review of each essay:

Gregg Strawbridge: Intriguing. Although he gives too much weight to the arguments of those who oppose infant baptism, he succinctly points out their case is based on inference.

Bryan Chapell: Good. He analyzes the biblical accounts of household baptisms. He takes the view that infant baptism is a seal which can be applied before the recipient meets the conditions of the covenant.

Daniel M. Doriani: Not about infant baptism. More of a curiosity piece, really.

Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning: Tries to prove too much.

Jonathan M. Watt: Depends too much on the culture of the time.

Mark E. Ross: Great. Fascinating examination of both circumcision and baptism as signs and seals. "What is signified and sealed by baptism is what God demands of us, not what we have pledged to God."

Joseph Pipa: Good. Shows that baptism does not mean immersion. Article is somewhat wordy.

Jeffrey D. Niell: Great. A tour de force on the relation between Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. He makes a convincing case that this is the doing away of the ceremonial law.

Richard L. Pratt Jr.: A much weaker essay on the relation between Jeremiah 31 and the New Testament.

Randy Booth: Good. A sweeping overview of covenant transition, useful for more than just the subject of baptism. Not as interesting for those who are skeptical, because of the large number of assertions.

Cornelis P. Venema: Good. A rigorous defense of infant baptism, based on the theology of the confessions.

Lyle D. Bierma: Good. Another rigorous defense of infant baptism, based on the theology of the confessions. Venema's quotes more from scripture, and Bierma's quotes more from the confessions.

Peter J. Leithart: Assumes the early church believed in believer's baptism, which isn't justified. Ends up saying that nobody has a good theology of infant baptism.

Gregg Strawbridge: Good. A study of the different camps who deny infant baptism, going back to the Reformation. He shows that those who validly partake of the covenant signs are members of the covenant.

Douglas Wilson: Good. He correctly states that this has to do with a biblical view of families, and he quotes some verses. The reasoning can become extreme, though.

R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Kind of a meandering piece that sounds like a series of personal thoughts, which could have been backed up by scripture.

This volume of essays is helpful and informative for all those trying to understand the theology and practice of infant baptism from a covenantal/Reformed perspective. Overall, it is clearly written and positively presented (i.e., not polemical) and written for a popular audience. Most of the essays are good, a few are outstanding (Neil, Pratt, Venema, Strawbrige), a few are weak (they shall remain nameless!) and a few seem slightly off-topic (Doriani, Sproul). I profited from reading this volume, though I cannot say it the last word on the subject (if such a thing is possible). If you want a more scholarly treatment, see Murray's Baptism (although it is dated). We still await a scholarly, up-to-date apology for infant baptism from a Reformed perspective. For the "professor's-only baptism view" (they are not necessarily true believers just because they claim to be!!!), you may want to read Malone and Jewett.

Recently I completed teaching a seven week series on the sacraments. As I prepared my studies and made a short list of resources that I wanted to make available to those studying with me, I asked myself "Now, regarding baptism, what kind of book do I need?"

What I needed was a single volume that constructs its case out of a close reading of the biblical data, that interacts with well-known objections in a clear but polite manner, and that sets forth the mainlines of covenant theology in such a way as to show how infant baptism properly belongs to that system and to the life of the Christian church. What I choose was The Case for Covenantal Baptism.

Written by a number of respected pastors and professors serving in various Reformed and evangelical settings, The Case for Covenantal Baptism does not break new ground, but it does offer substantial discussions of key biblical passages (e.g. Mt.28:18-20; Ac.2:39; Rom.4:11-12; 6:3-6; Heb.8:11-12; Jer.31; et.al). Further, it places the discussion of paedo-baptism (and the debate surrounding it) firmly within the covenantal context of Scripture. While some differences among the contributing authors are evident, yet for the most part this volume is remarkably even and coherent. Certainly it does make a clear case for covenantal baptism as well as offering theological and pastoral insight on the place of children in the Old and New Testaments and in the congregation.

Although there are now several good books on infant baptism available, yet I believe this articulate and constructive volume will be of benefit to pastors desirous of instructing their congregations in the sacraments. It will also be of value to seminary graduates heading into the pastorate and to continuing seminary students as a supplement to lectures. Finally, The Case for Covenantal Baptism should also prove helpful and therefore be appreciated by those studying this issue and endeavoring to make up their minds about the biblical validity of this precious practice.

I have found the general evangelical public's ignorance of Reformed Theology, the theology that lead the church away from centuries of superstition and corruption, to be a bit astounding. The evangelical church in America has largely embraced a Baptist perspective on the meaning of conversion and water baptism. Many, if not most, have no understanding whatsoever of any view other than their own.

This book presents the `other' evangelical perspective, the Reformed perspective, on water baptism. With Reformed Theology's resurgence in recent years, it would be to every evangelical Christian's advantage to read this book in order to gain an elemental understanding of their Christian kinsmen's faith.

The debate over who should be baptised has often been a very hot topic in the Church. How ever (since I do believe in only true disciples being baptised) I found little information that is not easily defeated from Scripture in this work.

The book is a series of articles on the subject of "Christian Baptism" from a Reformed perspective. The articles are designed to show that the Bible teaches that the Reformed view of infant baptism was indeed practised by the early Church. Is this the case?

First of all baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38) and since the work of Christ has nullified the sin of Adam in children (Romans 5:12-19) then babies are not born guilty or sinful and thus do not need salvation. Romans 4:15, 7:7-11 teach that children become sinners through breaking the Law of God. This work, of course, takes the Reformed position of total depravity to its extreme and teaches that because of total depravity then children must be baptised.

Secondly, Christians are now under a New Covenant and not the Old which does not imitate the conditions for membership which existed under the Old. Jeremiah 31:31-34 prophesies the coming of a new covenant and Jesus established this covenant with His blood (Luke 22:20). The New Covenant demands disciples are to baptised (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; Colossians 2:12). Those in this work go to great links to try to prove that the Old and New Covenant are essentially the same with only slight differences but this is biblically not true!

Thirdly, there is simply no Scriptural evidence of infant baptism in the NT. Those in this work try to infer that baptism passages such as Acts 10:48 must have infants involved is reading into the text what is not said. There are no direct passages on infant baptism in the entire NT. Those in this work might try to justify infant baptism as a practise by Church history or quoting early Church fathers but they can not build a strong case from Scripture and this is the weakest part of their argument.

Overall this work does little to build the Reformed position. The majority of the evangelical Church and those of us in the biblical Churches of Christ know that the Scriptures clearly teach baptism by immersion and I would add that Scripture teaches this one baptism (Ephesians 4:5) as a baptism that now saves (1 Peter 3:21). This can not be infant baptism but disciple's baptism.

For more information on baptism see the following books:
Jack Cottrell BAPTISM: A BIBLICAL STUDY
Rex Geissler BORN OF WATER