Customer Reviews

Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If there was any book I wished to give a layman who did not believe in infant baptism or was generally unfamiliar as to why the practice is done, this would be it. Pastor Booth writes in an easy to read style while at the same time deals adequately with the complex issues and arguments surrounding this divisive issue. He answers all the common objections to infant baptism in a convincing manner (while at the same time maintaining a spirit of charity), and he does answer some of the more recent works attacking infant baptism, although not to as rigorous an extent as I would have liked (e.g. Paul Jewett's book "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace"). He does a very good job of explaining the household baptisms of Acts 16 (which, in my opinion, should settle the matter that people were baptized who had not made a profession of faith, a key objection to infant baptism), and he does an excellent job at demonstrating how the essence of God's eternal covenant has been the same from Genesis to Revelation - only the administration has changed. A weakness of the book is that he does not delve into the practice of infant baptism throughout the history of the new covenant church. Although this is treated by a different author in an appendix of the book, perhaps a more thorough list of quotations from many church fathers could have been helpful to demonstrate the universality of the practice until the advent of the Anabaptists in the 1500's. (Prior to that time, only fringe groups opposed the practice of infant baptism.) All in all, the book accomplishes its purpose in establishing infant baptism as the correct doctrine of New Testament teaching. Even the most ardent opponent of infant baptism will have difficulty countering the book's arguments without having to resort to straw man or red herring arguments.

Booth makes a good case for infant baptism vis a vis dispensationalism, but infant baptism does not necessarily turn on this issue, as Paul Jewett demonstrates in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. I would recommend that Jewett's book be read along with this one to get a better sense of all the issues involved.

While Mr Booth's topic is primarily directed to why Christian children should receive the sign of the covenant "baptism", he also does an excellent job of showing why it is imperative that we see the Old & New Testament as a unity. He shows why we must understand the Old Testament to fully understand the New Testament.

I said in my review of Douglas Wilson's To a Thousand Generations that it was one of two books that finally convinced me of the paedobaptist position. This is the other one.

Before I read this book, I was a Baptist, albeit one who had already accepted the basic premises of Covenant Theology.

Booth doesn't merely address baptism in this book. The first part of it is a cogent explanation of Covenant Theology. If every Dispensationalist would read this book, perhaps we would stop "talking past each other." ...

Booth's writing style is easy to read, and the vignettes presented with each chapter do a great job of illustrating his points.

If you are a Baptist with questions on the subject, you owe it to yourself to read this book. If you already believe in paedobaptism, this book should help you understand why.

Robert (Randy) Booth, a former Baptist, has put together a fairly compelling case for the practice of infant baptism in a way that is very accessible to the general reader and those new to the debate. More than just a book about baptism, however, this is also a good introduction to Covenant Theology in general, which the author contends is at the heart of case for infant baptism. Contrary to the popular sentiment among many Christians today, that the debate over baptism is some pedantic argument over theological trivialities, Booth points out that one's position on baptism is controlled by fundamental assumptions about how the Bible ought to be interpreted; especially with reference to the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. To his credit Booth remains respectful and gracious throughout to those who disagree with him.

Choosing to build his case on biblical and theological grounds, Booth includes an Appendix which contains the argument from church history for infant baptism, by Samuel Miller. A second Appendix contains a table listing the similarities between circumcision and baptism, along with scriptural references.

Unfortunately this text uses end notes rather than footnotes, forcing the reader to flip back and forth to the end of the chapter to reference a citation. A selected bibliography of works would also have been a helpful addition for those wanting to do further research.

While no one should conclude that this is the definitive work on the subject (some of the other reviews notwithstanding) it is nonetheless a helpful and readable introduction to Covenant Theology, and the general case that can be made for infant baptism.

Children of the Promise is an attractive and well-presented argumentfor the paedobaptist position. Formerly a Baptist pastor, Booth writessimply and with the sensitivity of one who has wrestled seriously with the doctrine of baptism, settling into the paedobaptist position. His call for charity toward one another with open Bibles is a needed call which resonates with every true Christian.

Developing his argument along the lines of a theology of the biblical covenants, Booth argues that the Old Testament "covenants of promise" were an unfolding of the one covenant of grace. Therefore, to Booth, the covenant of grace, by definition, includes the household and its children as did the covenants of promise. From this assumption and inference, Booth concludes that the New Covenant, as the fulfillment of those Old Testament covenants of promise, must also include the household and its children by definition. Therefore, just as the household children were circumcised in the covenants of promise, so the household children of the New Covenant receive the sign and seal of baptism.

This line of reasoning is Booth's primary argument. To prohibit household children from the sign of baptism would require for Booth a specific statement prohibiting them, even if the instituted commands and examples of baptism in the New Testament described "disciples only" baptism. For Booth, positive instituted New Testament revelation cannot override logical inference from the Old Testament.

Booth includes an appendix entitled "Samuel Miller's Argument from Church History," even though Pierre Marcel (The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, see review in Founders Journal 35) denies that such an argument is worthy of use in the debate on baptism. Miller argues that from Tertullian forward, infant baptism was the accepted practice of the church until the Anabaptists arose, thus establishing the supposed apostolic tradition of infant baptism.

Typical of paedobaptist arguments, neither Booth nor Miller discuss the importance of the Didache (100-125 A. D.), the earliest tradition of the apostles outside of the New Testament, which actually is a church manual giving directions for how baptism should be practiced. Yet it only describes the baptism of disciples, a glaring omission if infant baptism were practiced. Miller's essay is a weak presentation of the historical argument.

Another appendix has Booth's chart of the similarities between circumcision and baptism. While Baptists recognize many of Booth's comparisons (ie., cleansing and regeneration), he misses the most important point of his own comparison: that circumcision was an Old Testament type of which regeneration, not baptism, is the antitype (Rom. 2:27; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11-12).

Baptism is the new sign given in the New Covenant to those who have repented and believed as evidence of that regeneration (heart circumcision) and membership in the effectual New Covenant (Heb. 8:8-12). It is retrospective of the antitypical reality of which circumcision was the type. Booth does not understand that the connection between circumcision and baptism is that of prospective and retrospective signs of the reality they both symbolize, the regeneration of the heart. This is why Holy Spirit regeneration is called the "seal" in the New Testament (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:20), not baptism, as Booth claims. It is perfectly plausible for the prospective sign to be required typically of the Old Testament people of God while reserved antitypically and retrospectively for the New Testament people of God in the fulfillment. And this is exactly what the biblical evidence presents against Booth's logical inference.....

All in all, Booth's attempt to justify infant baptism is valiant if exegetically and logically flawed. One has trouble believing that all paedobaptists would even agree with his definition of a covenant (John Owen does not), which is a fundamental issue. If one were looking for a good argument to become a paedobaptist, and if one felt comfort reading of a former Baptist's theological journey, then one might become convinced by Booth's presentation to leave the trials of reforming a difficult Baptist church, or denomination, and to seek the safe haven of paedobaptist service and ministry. But if one is looking for sound hermeneutics and exegesis, an understanding and refutation of the covenantal Baptist position, and a better argument for infant baptism, this book will sadly disappoint.

This book is the best introduction to Covenant Theology that I've seen. Booth, formerly a Baptist pastor, provides a cogent presentation of Covenant Theology -- the undergirding foundation of infant baptism. He gives a thorough overview of the Biblical plan of redemption via successive, expanding covenants, culminating with the crowning achievement of redemption: the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone could walk away from this very "down to earth" book without "converting" to Covenant Theology in general and infant baptism in particular.

I have read many books from both sides of the infant baptism debate, but this is the best yet! However, it still has its imperfections.

His introduction is a supreme example of how to encourage those of an opposing view in the true Church to examine one's view in the light of Holy Scripture.

As a whole the book is excellent. He begins each chapter with an apt (but not superfluous) illustration. He then proceeds to argue his case in a very logical manner. Each chapter is structured into short sections, which is helpful.

He argues from the continuity of the eternal Covenant of salvation, the continuity of the Church in both Testaments, the continuity of the sign of the Covenant, the continuity of the treatment of the children of God's people by God and the continuity of the idea of household in both Tesaments, for infant baptism.

The main imperfections in this book are: his tendency to make jumps in his train of thought; his poor exegesis at a few minor points; and his lack of clear Biblical evidence at some points. I can read between the lines, but a hard-nosed dispensationalist, who says, "Show me Biblical evidence!" could manage to evade the force of the arguments in this book. (If he was more open and fair-minded, he would do better. However, he would still be struggling to evade the force of these arguments, IF he was a careful student of Scripture.)

(My wife and I read this book together and came to the same opinions about it, by the way.)

You may ask, "Why does this guy's opinion about this book matter?"

Although brought up in a solid paedobaptist (i.e. believing in baptising believers infants) church, I could not see this idea in the Scriptures. I thus intended to join a Baptist church when I grew older. However, being a "born-again" Christian and believing that all things should be tested by the Scriptures alone and believing that our forefathers in the historic Presbyterian and Reformed churches were no fools (and knowing that there is no tangible evidence for Baptist theology prior to the early 1500's - see the appendix in this book for a good historical study), I studied this issue intensively from both sides and came to the conclusion that infant baptism was true and that there is excellent Biblical evidence for it.

Further studies led me to read David Kingdon's "The Children of Abraham", a Calvinistic Baptist study of the issue. This was a better proposal than standard Baptist arguments, but it was still unsatisfactory as an explanation of the Biblical facts. I was still confirmed in the belief that baptism is an ordinance commanded by God for the children of believers, as well as new believers who have never been baptised as the child of a believer.

This book has confirmed me even more strongly in this view. As my wife is about to give birth to our first child tomorrow (God willing), I intend to have it receive the sign of the covenant and membership in the visible congregation of God's people, and I thank God my child is holy (1 Cor. 7:14) and that it is His will that I raise up godly offspring (Mal. 2:15).

May God bring it and all my descendants to salvation. And may God show you the truth of infant baptism in this book. AMEN.

In this book, Robert Booth does a fabulous job of demonstrating that the essential unity of the various covenants that have been administered by God is the very basis for infant baptism. Understanding this unity will enable one to see that Scripture does indeed enjoin the promises in the covenant (forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God) not only to us, but to our children. God deals with His people corporately, not simply individually, and it is this that is perhaps most difficult for us in America to understand. Above all else, this book is well-written and faithful to the Word of God.

In Acts 15:1 Luke writes, And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." They had a big summit meeting on this in Jerusalem. Was their conclusion to tell the gentiles that we no longer practice circumcision because it has been replaced by infant baptism? No, the response is found in verse 29, "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Why did not one person stand up for infant baptism. Furthermore, if infant baptism is such an important doctrine, replacing circumcision, which is mentioned hundreds of times, why is infant baptism not mentioned even once anywhere in the Bible?
Randy Booth, who should know better as a former Baptist pastor, misrepresents virtually everything dispensationalists believe. On page 18 and 19 he says that "the dispensational method of interpretation emphasizes discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments." We do not. You can not understand the good news of the New Testament without first understanding the bad news of the Old Testament. On page 28. Booth asks, "Has God one plan of redemption (covenantal), or has he had more than one plan (dispensational)?" I have never known a dispensationalist to teach that. People have always been saved in exactly the same way, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through faith in Him alone.
These are just a couple of the many misrepresentations presented in this book. If I believed that is what the Baptist taught, I would have left them too.