A brief case for infant baptism

1. God deals with his people by covenanting with them. From the Garden of Eden on, God makes arrangements with his people that bind both parties. There are promised blessings for covenant faithfulness and promised curses for covenant unfaithfulness (Gen 2:15-17).

2. These covenants have implications for the recipients and for their children. Adam’s fall affected all his descendants (Rom 5:12-13). In the same way, God promised to be God to Abraham, and to his children after him (Gen 17:7).

3. God’s covenant with Abraham included a physical sign that was given to his children. The sign of circumcision was to be given to all Abraham’s male children—in fact, to every male in his household (Gen 17:9-14).

4. The New Covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29; see also Gal 3:7-9).

5. This New Covenant also has a physical sign that sets God’s people apart from the world. Baptism is now the mark that makes a distinction between the people of God and the world (Matt 28:19).

6. The signs of circumcision and baptism point to the same reality. Paul describes Abraham’s circumcision as a “seal of the righteousness he had by faith” (Rom 4:11). Baptism is also a sign of justification by faith (Rom 6:3-4). (“Righteousness” and “justification” translate the same Greek word.)

7. God makes a distinction between the children of believers and those of nonbelievers. In 1 Cor 7:14, Paul says that the children of at least one believing parent are “holy,” where they would otherwise be “unclean.” This is covenantal language, similar to what we see in the book of Leviticus: people, places and things are either “unclean,” common, or they are “holy,” set apart for God.

8. There is no indication in the NT that the covenant sign is no longer to be given to the children of believing parents. It would never have occurred to a first-century Jew, upon coming to Christ and embracing the New Covenant, that the covenant sign was not to be given to his children. For over a millennium God had promised to be God to his people and their children after them. If there was to be a change in the covenantal status of children, it would need to be explained to Jewish believers, and we see no such explanation.

Why do we baptize children? No one is saved by being born into a believing family. We are saved by the work of Christ, which we receive by faith. Infant baptism is based not on the assumption that these children are or will be saved, but on the fact that God regards the children of believing families as part of his covenant family. Our children are not of the world; they are of the church, God’s visible family on earth. As such, they have a right to the mark that sets God’s people apart from the world.

Piper: Why are Calvinists so negative?

I just stumbled across John Piper’s answer to this question, and it’s predictably excellent. Some of the points he makes:

• The intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of person, who doesn’t tend to be the warm fuzzy type.
• When people come to believe in the doctrines of grace, they’re often amazed that they missed them for so long, and sometimes angry that their churches haven’t been teaching them.
• Calvinists do want to convince others of the truth of these doctrines. At best this is not out of elitism, but it sometimes comes across that way because of our sin.

Piper does a good job of acknowledging that this stereotype exists, admitting that it’s often accurate, and explaining why it is often inaccurate. It’s a much better answer than a cliche like “A proud Calvinist is an oxymoron.”

Hip social action and apologizing for Christians isn’t the Gospel.

Kevin DeYoung (coauthor of Why We’re Not Emergent and Why We Love the Church, both highly recommended) has a great post today: The Gospel Old and New. He outlines the typical presentation of what he calls the New Gospel (my summary):

1. Start with an apology for how terrible all [other] Christians are.
2. Appeal to “God as love,” with no reference to his wrath.
3. Give an invitation to “join God’s mission,” defined as working for peace and justice on earth.
4. Close with a “studied ambivalence” on eternity: Is there a hell? Who am I to say? But let’s work for the here and now.

His conclusion:

This is no small issue. And it is not just a matter of emphasis. The New Gospel will not sustain the church. It cannot change the heart. And it does not save.

Read the whole thing.

“He is not after those three points. He is after that woman’s job.”

In his talk at DG’s Calvin conference, Doug Wilson gives a great illustration of Calvin’s doctrine of the supremacy and self-authentication of Scripture.

One day, the schoolmarm in the one-room schoolhouse of modernity gave a test to all the little kids in her class. The schoolmarm’s name was Mrs. Enlightenment, and one kid was named the Bhagavad Gita, and there were the Vedas, and there was the Koran, and another was the Book of Mormon. And of course the test was also given to the best student in the class, the Holy Bible.

When the tests were graded and returned, it turned out that the Bhagavad Gita scored a 38, the Koran a 52, the Book of Mormon a 17… and our Scriptures, our Bible, scored an impressive 97.

What does this make all of us want to do? It makes us want to get up to the teacher’s desk pronto, and argue for the three points, that’s what! We have fallen for the trap of thinking that inerrancy requires us to be grade nerds: always the best student in the class, but one who cannot abide making a mistake and who will argue with the teacher over every last point.

But something is more fundamentally wrong with this picture than that unfair grading process. The problem is that the Bible never enrolled in that class to begin with, and never agreed to be tested by any Mrs. Enlightenment. The Scriptures do not take these tests; the Scriptures administer tests. The Bible is not that which meets the standard; the Bible is that which sets the standard.

So would Calvin have agreed that the Bible is like silver refined sevenfold, as in Psalm 12:6? Yes, certainly. Would he have agreed with a score of 97? Of course not. The Scriptures are not a possession of ours which we may put into the world’s balances to be weighed. Rather, the Scriptures are God’s scales, in which he places the entire world, and all the nations of men.

…[series of Calvin quotes and explanation]…

[Calvin] would have no trouble showing that the three points were rightfully ours. But he would also have no trouble showing Mrs. Enlightenment that unbelief ought not to be teaching that class or grading the papers. He is not after those three points. He is after that woman’s job.

Listen to the whole thing. (Don’t just read it; it’s not a full manuscript and some of the best parts are off-the-cuff.)

Good reading on Calvin

From Between Two Worlds:

Timothy George has the cover story in CT: John Calvin: The Comeback Kid. See also his two sidebar/mini-articles: The Reluctant Reformer and Calvin’s Biggest Mistake.

These are all great. In 20 minutes you can get a very good overview on Calvin’s life and thought.

Piper, the tornado, and the aftermath

Last week a tornado struck downtown Minneapolis. John Piper wrote an article about it on the Desiring God blog, with specific reference to a meeting the same day of the ELCA, a Lutheran denomination, in which they approved a document that spoke approvingly of homosexual relationships.

At that point, all hell broke loose. The post now has over 700 comments, which might have the DG staff regretting their recent decision to have a commenting feature in the first place. I saw several references to it on Facebook, often with disapproving comments. A guy on Twitter said “It’s official: John Piper is bat-shit crazy.”

What Piper did not say, and what seemingly most of the people who read it thought he said, was that the tornado was definitively God’s judgment on the Lutherans. What he did say is this: in Luke 13:4-5, Jesus is asked about a seemingly random catastrophe that killed 18 people, and his response is that all people should repent. This means, says Piper (and I think he’s right), that catastrophes in general are a reminder of God’s sovereignty, his coming judgment, and a call to repent and believe. He then applies that warning to the specific situation of the Lutherans.

I know it’s controversial, but it’s really only as controversial as the Bible. Seriously, the Bible casually talks about storms and other natural phenomena as being sent by God all the time. And the parallel with the Luke 13 passage is pretty much a 1:1. Seemingly random event –> application: people should repent.

I thought it was a good, pastoral article. Here’s something that happened in the world, here’s what the Bible says, here’s what we should do. He includes himself in the warning too: “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.”

The most you could say, I think, is that Piper should have had a paragraph that started “Here’s what I’m not saying.” Or that a blog post that’s going to be quickly skimmed is not a good format for making a closely-nuanced argument. But it’s not Piper’s fault if people skim him and get the wrong idea, and if we always qualify everything to make sure we’re not misunderstood, we’ll end up never really saying anything. (Link via Abraham Piper.)

It does seem mean, and insensitive, and pompous to our culture’s ears. But, and this is my big point, so does the Bible. I don’t think Piper went anywhere the Bible doesn’t.

Why we should object when preachers say theologically stupid things.

A preacher at a famous megachurch I recently visited:

I’ve never yet met anyone with an obedient heart who was living under some sort of curse.

Gee, that’s too bad for the young single female missionary friend of ours, heading to a closed Muslim country, who was just diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer. If only she’d had an obedient heart, this wouldn’t have happened.

Now someone might object when I criticize things like this, when preachers casually say things that are just plain wrong. “They didn’t mean it like that,” someone might say.

I have two responses to this.

First, preachers have a responsibility to carefully consider their words. People will assume they are true at the most obvious level of meaning, not the closest theologically accurate one. I guarantee you most of the thousands of people in the room when this guy spouted this nonsense did not put it through a filter and come up with a passable, nuanced interpretation. Most of them just nodded or wrote it down in their fancy moleskine journal.

Second, in Matthew 12:36 Jesus says, “On the day of judgment men will give account for every careless word they speak.” How much more, do you think, will ministers of the Word give an account for what they said while they claimed to be preaching the gospel?

Good News on Good Friday

Yesterday I read Deuteronomy 28, part of which is a long list of curses that will come on Israel if they do not follow God’s law. A selection:

But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out…

The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You shall go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them…

Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you…

If you are not careful to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God, then the Lord will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sicknesses grievous and lasting.

That’s what makes Paul’s announcement in Galatians 3 such good news:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

What a Savior. What a good Friday.

Are All Sins the Same?

Yes and no.

Often Christians say, when discussing things like abortion and homosexuality, that these are sins just as lying, gossip, and gluttony are sins. (I say it sometimes.) This is usually because we want to show that we’re not better than homosexuals or people who have been involved in an abortion. We’re placing ourselves in the “sinners” category, right where we belong.

It’s true, in one sense, that a sin is a sin. Every sin is the same in that it’s an offense against a holy God, and deserves his punishment. But is every sin “the same”– that is, equally offensive to God? The Bible’s answer is no.

This is one of many questions where the Westminster Confession and its catechisms are really helpful. Question 84 of the Shorter Catechism shows us how every sin is the same:

Q 84. What doth every sin deserve?

A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come. (Eph. 5:6; Gal. 3:10; Lam. 3:39; Matt. 25:41)

The previous question shows how every sin is not the same:

Q 83. Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?

A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others. (Ezek. 8:6,13,15; 1 John 5:16; Ps. 78:17, 32, 56)

Question 151 of the Larger Catechism (scroll down and click “Q. 151-196″),  which is longer than many of my posts, gives many examples of the “several aggravations” that can make some sins worse than others, with lots of Scripture citations. It’s well worth a 5-minute read.

So while it’s important for us to take our seat among the sinners, we should also feel free to say that some sins (including some of our own) are much worse than other sins. For example, it’s a sin for a man to speak harshly to his children because he can’t control his temper, but it’s a much greater sin for him to pay to have his unborn child killed so he’s free of the inconvenience that child might bring.

“Because Of,” Not “So That”

My friend Michael has been reading Deuteronomy, and made a great observation over lunch this week:

How could anybody read this and think they could earn God’s favor for themselves by keeping the Law?

He’s thinking of passages like this:

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today. (Deut 7:6-11, emphasis added)

Scripture always tells us to obey God because he loves us and has redeemed us, not so that we can earn his approval. When we read exactly what obedience to him requires, that becomes really good news, because we could never– would never– obey him sufficiently on our own.