A Reformed Response to a Reformed Baptist

In response to Reformed Baptist Brandon Wilkins’ review of his book on infant baptism, Jesus Loves the Little Children, Rev. Hyde here offers his own review of Wilkins’ review. Again, it’s great to see level-headed and engaging conversation among those of us who genuinely disagree on very important things, yet are able and willing to recogize one another as brothers in the Lord. Over to you, Rev. Hyde:

A Response to Brandon T. Wilkins’ Review of Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children

Rev. Daniel R. Hyde

Oceanside United Reformed Church

I appreciate the invitation to respond to the review of my first book Jesus Loves the Little Children. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

Let me begin by thanking Mr. Wilkins for noticing that this book is intended to be clear, concise, and conversational (vii). As he notes in his prefatory comments, the audience for which I wrote this book was not an academic one, but the average visitor to my congregation, as well as all Reformed congregations. In all my books I seek to write as a pastor to my sheep as well as those without a sheep pen. I am thankful Mr. Wilkins perceived this intent and did not take me to task too much!

What follows, then, is a brief response to and interaction with his review of my book, following his three areas of disagreement.

Hermeneutics

After stating his appreciation for my opening discussion of presuppositions and the Reformed concept of “good and necessary inference” (2-3) as defined by Westminster Confession I.6 but missing from the London Baptist Confession, Mr. Wilkins laments that I actually follow what he calls, “a positivist hermeneutic.” His evidence is that I say, “after the people of God placed the sign of the covenant upon their children for 2000 years, an explicit revoking of this practice is necessary if this practice is to end” (30). He goes on to say, “But how is this claim any different, hermeneutically-speaking, than the Baptist claim that an explicit command is necessary to baptize infants?” What Mr. Wilkins misses here is that my statement is a good and necessary consequence because a good and necessary consequence is not founded on “proof-texts” but the entire flow of redemptive history. What else are we to conclude from the facts of redemptive history that I mention on pages 34 and 38, that some aspects of the former things have been abolished, some things continue, but most especially that some things are re-interpreted:

• § Circumcision is no longer required of Gentile converts (Gal. 5); instead, both Jews and Gentiles who come to faith in Jesus Christ must be baptized (Acts 2).
• § Animal sacrifices are done away with because of Jesus’ final sacrifice (Heb. 10).
• § The kosher dietary laws no longer apply to the members of the Church because Jesus cleanses people from every tribe, tongue, language and nation and has declared all food good (Mark 7; Acts 10-11; 1 Tim. 4).
• § In the New Covenant we still worship at Mt. Zion, but it is now a heavenly mountain, a heavenly place (Heb. 12:22; Gal. 4:25-26; Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10).
• § The Church still worships at a temple, but because of Christ’s once-for-all redemptive work, we as the Church of Jesus Christ are God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:18-22; Rev. 3:12).
• § We still have a sacrificial altar upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was sacrificed, yet it is heavenly (Heb. 9:1-12, 21-24).
• § The Holy of holies that the priest alone was allowed to enter into once a year under the Old Covenant is now a heavenly place where all the redeemed may enter with boldness because Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 10:19-21).

The point of my argument is that we can infer from these revocations and re-interpretations that since placing the sign of the covenant on all those in the covenant community is never revoked, it continues under the new administration of the one covenant of grace.

Finally, under the rubric of hermeneutics Mr. Wilkins offers his assessment of our deeper assumptions about “how to relate the two motifs of covenant and eschatology during the church’s semi-eschatological existence.” The problem with his statement that the Baptist side gives eschatology precedence while the Reformed side gives covenant precedence, is that the Baptist position ­over-realizes what Mr. Wilkins admits is the church’s semi-eschatological state. The fact, then, that the church is semi-eschatological and hasn’t arrived at the consummation yet means that by nature the church is not a pure, elect-only church. Our practice of infant baptism and church discipline are practical expressions of the semi-eschatological reality of the covenant church in this age.

Baptism and Circumcision

The second area of disagreement Mr. Wilkins mentions is the relationship between circumcision and baptism. While agreeing that they are continuous as to their substance, he says, “I’m not persuaded that this continuity means that these signs can be ‘equated’ (pg. 19) or that one ‘replaces’ the other (pg. 26).” Not only is this the classic language of the Reformed confessions (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74; Belgic Confession, art. 34) and the church fathers, such as Justin Martyr (Dialog with Trypho the Jew, ch. 18), but it also is borne out of the exegesis I offered of Colossians 2 (see below).

Mr. Wilkins goes on to assert that “in addition to continuity of substance” we somehow have to prove continuity of administration as well as “the Reformed argument seems to suggest that since there is continuity of substance between circumcision and baptism, then there is necessarily continuity of administration. This is ad hoc.” One need only read the paragraphs above concerning the good and necessary inference on infant baptism as well as the fact that the pure administration of circumcision meant administration to all males in the covenant community. This is not ad hoc, then, but the very essence of the sign itself.

Mr. Wilkins goes on to say circumcision “was a typological ordinance, appropriate to the church’s infantile existence (cf. Gal. 4:1-6)” that “pointed to Christ in a very specific way; through a promised geo-political land, through a promised physical lineage, through membership in a national entity, through the Mosaic Law.” There are several issues with this sentence. First, Mr. Wilkins seems to equate the administration of the covenant of grace through Abraham and Moses. Circumcision was given under Abraham, not Moses. The promises to Abraham were not merely about a geo-political land, since he had no land, a national entity, since there was no nation, only a family, nor was the Mosaic Law given under Abraham. In sum, this sentence was confusing to me. Second, as I say on pages 17-20, circumcision and baptism are both signs of the highest spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ. For Mr. Wilkins to say circumcision was about “a promised geo-political land, through a promised physical lineage, through membership in a national entity” totally distorts the presentation the Old Testament itself gives to circumcision (cf. the relevant verses on pp. 17-20).

As to his comment that “if they [circumcision/baptism] are not equalities, then it is imprudent to make assumptions about the administration of one from the administration of the other,” I would refer the reader to my exegesis of Colossians 2:11-12 (pp. 19-22), which Mr. Wilkins does not interact with, where I labored to show that baptism replacing circumcision is no mere “assumption,” but a biblical teaching.

Finally, Mr. Wilkins mentions briefly that he believes there is continuity between baptism and other Old Testament rites, which he explains, “rites that were not participated in merely on the basis of being born to covenant members.” He speaks of the Hebrews 10:22 drawing the connection between baptism and the consecration of the Levites for priestly service, which was given on the condition of a conscious act of willing service to God. This connection is interesting, although he does not offer support for it. Classic Reformed exegesis says this is an appeal to draw near to God in holy worship because we have been baptized with water (the sign) and received the cleansing of our souls (the thing signified). As well, I’m not sure how strong an argument it really is to say the priests really wanted to serve God and they had special washings, ergo the Baptist position is biblical, given that two of the first three priests, Nadab and Abihu, were wiped off the face of the earth for their pretended “service.” As well, it is strange he would use this as an analogy when God preserved a remnant of his covenant people, who only had circumcision, while he denounced the priests as abhorrent to God, with all their “conscientious” desire to serve God signified by washings (E.g., Zeph. 3:4).

The New Covenant and the Children of Believers

Basically, Mr. Wilkins would have us conclude that Peter’s language in Acts 2, “To you and to your offspring,” must be interpreted by Paul’s language in Galatians 3 as meaning, “To you and to Christ.” This is what Mr. Wilkins says: “Paul argues in Galatians 3:16 that this promise is fulfilled in Christ.” So if the “covenant family” language was no longer a New Covenant reality, why did Peter use it? He was not arguing with Judaizers about the Gospel and their insistence that it could come through physical rites, but he was addressing a Jewish crowd and used Old Testament language. The point is this: Mr. Wilkins would have us adopt an either/or exegesis, but what we learn from the entirety of the New Testament is that we need to read the covenant promises of Genesis, for example, with a both/and principle. Galatians interprets the Abrahamic language to refer to Christ, while other New Testament texts, such as Acts 2, lead us to see the multiformity of Scripture and say the offspring of believers are also recipients of the sign of the covenant. As an analogy, how should we interpret the Old Testament temple, as a type? What is the antitype? Well, Jesus calls his body the temple in John 2 (Cf. John 1:14), but Peter, Paul, and John call the church the temple (1 Peter 2; Eph. 2; Rev. 21), but yet, the book of Hebrews says the true temple of God is in heaven (Heb. 8-9). Which is it?

Next, Mr. Wilkins seeks to refute my language that passages such as Ephesians 6:1-4 and Colossians 3:20 mean that children of believers have a peculiar covenantal relationship to Christ and “belong to” Christ (42). He offers Romans 8:9 as a refutation: “Anyone who does not possess the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” Yet this is a part of the problem of how we read Scripture. The covenant of grace is distinguished biblically (E.g., Rom. 2:28-29, 9:6) between those in it outwardly and those in it also inwardly. Put another way, all covenant members are in the broad circle of the covenant administration, but only the elect are in the narrow, concentric circle of those who posses the substance of the covenant. To say “children of believers belong to the Lord” is to say they belong to the people of God as a corporate community, which is not to say that they necessarily posses the Spirit and therefore belong to Jesus Christ in a saving way as Romans 8:9 says.

Mr. Wilkins then rattles off a list of issues under the heading of Jesus’ teaching about children. He says, “If children being brought to Jesus necessarily means that they should be baptized as infants, then why not baptize all infants everywhere (what in the text limits this promise to covenant children)”? What limits it is that those who brought their children belonged to the covenant people of God, Israel. Mr. Wilkins then asks, “Furthermore, why shouldn’t they participate in the Lord’s Supper”? The answer is that Reformed exegesis of texts such as 1 Corinthians 11 leads us to believe that only those who profess their faith in Christ may partake. He asks another question: “Why not baptize all sick people? They were also brought to Christ.” The answer is that with the children, Jesus explicitly said, “To such belong the kingdom of God.” Do we read this with the sick?

Finally, in response to my exegesis of Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3, Mr. Wilkins offers his understanding of the place of children, rooting his understanding not in the covenant of grace, but in the doctrines of the family as a creational institution and the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I think this is commendable and I agree with these two points. However, what Mr. Wilkins does not wrestle with is the fact that this is not how Paul roots the place of children. Paul explicitly makes the connection between children in the New Covenant and children in the Old Covenant by his reference and application of the fifth Commandment. I do not know what else he could have done. It’s as if he is saying, “Under the Old Covenant children were members of the covenant, in fact, God particularly addressed them in his holy Law to the holy people; now under the New Covenant they still belong and this commandment still applies to children of the church.”

In the end, I appreciated reading Mr. Wilkins’ review and was stimulated to think deeply about my assumptions, exegesis, and confessional commitment. As I mentioned in the opening, my purpose in writing the book was to explain the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism for a culture of people without knowledge of the Reformation. It is still my prayer that God would draw all peoples, whether unbelievers, backslidden Christians, burned-out evangelicals, and yes, Reformed Baptists, to the true church as expressed in the Reformed confessions, which includes infant baptism.