Well, friends, it has been a while since I’ve posted about the reasoning behind why Amy and I made the shift this year to being Presbyterians. One of my goals has been to take time every so often to explain another aspect of this theological journey. In my previous posts on “Why I Am A Presbyterian” (linked below), I’ve discussed the household principle, how baptism replaced circumcision, and why the mode of baptism can be sprinkling/pouring and not only immersion. In this post, I want to speak more to some of the ‘covenant theology’ that undergirds the Presbyterian understanding of who constitutes ‘the people of God’. You see, Baptists & Presbyterians alike agree that anyone who is a part of the church – God’s New Covenant community – should be baptized. We just differ on whether we believe God includes infants of believers in that group. So, while it may not appear to be an argument re: infant baptism at first glance, this is actually central to our understanding of it. Now, fair warning – this part of the theological argument for paedobaptism is a bit more technical and involved, so I also realize for many folks this is probably the argument that will take the most time to chew on. But this was actually the MOST important piece of the biblical puzzle that led me, personally, to become Presbyterian. And while I won’t be able to hit all the nuances of a deep dive into covenant theology, I do want to highlight why my understanding of the New Covenant changed and how this also impacted my view on baptism. All that being said, let’s dive in.
At the center of this discussion is Jeremiah 31:31-34. You see, in this passage we get the promise of “The New Covenant” which Jeremiah prophesies about. According to this text, the promise of the New Covenant is that the Lord is going to put his law within his people, writing it on their hearts (v33) and that no longer will each one teach his neighbor or brother to know the Lord because they will ALL know him (v34). Not only that, but he promises that he will forgive our iniquity and remember our sins no more (v34). What a beautiful promise!
When I was a Reformed Baptist, I would argue that this is the passage above all others that was the Presbyterian’s real weakness. The New Covenant is about Christ coming and establishing his Church, so then, if everyone who is a part of this New Covenant will know him, have the law written on their hearts, be forgiven, etc – how could anyone be a part of the church (this New Covenant Community) who isn’t ‘born again’? From a baptistic standpoint, the argument was that the people of God in the Old Covenant were a mixed people – believers AND unbelievers – but in the New Covenant we don’t have that problem anymore as they will ALL be believers. So, the argument goes, if baptism is the sign that identifies someone as part of God’s people, then (credo)baptists would say that sign should only be applied to believers, since (from their perspective) the New Covenant people is made up only of believers. They’d say that is what makes this New Covenant superior to the Old Covenant. And this seemed like a rock solid interpretation to me for several years, until I realized there’s more to it…
There’s actually several reasons why this interpretation falls short: First, the “Old Covenant” that Jeremiah refers to is not “everything in the Old Testament” or “everything that comes before Jesus”, but is much more specific than that. Notice, Jeremiah specifically says in v32 that the New Covenant is not like the one when God’s people were led out of Egypt (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant made at Sinai). Likewise, the author of Hebrews makes this same point when he contrasts between the Old & New Covenants in Hebrews 8. Old Covenant = Moses, not Abraham. This is important because the Abrahamic Covenant is not in view here – you know, the one where God said I will be a God to you and your offspring. This is why in Acts 2:39 it is important that Peter says the promise of the New Covenant is “for your & your children & all who are far off” because he is repeating Abrahamic Covenant language (Genesis 17) showing the Abrahamic is not done away with, but rather the Mosaic.
Secondly, it is important for us to understand that Jeremiah 31 – like most prophecies in the Old Testament – actually has multiple fulfillments. Think of it like this – Isaiah 9:6-7 is a prophecy about the coming Messiah – the Lord Jesus. A child was to be born upon whom the Government will rest and the peace he brings and his kingdom shall have no end. Well, we know this has, in one sense, already been realized at Jesus’ 1st coming, when he established his spiritual kingdom. But we also know that the fullness of this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled in every way as it one day will be, which is why we look forward to Jesus’ 2nd coming. It is then that, as the old hymn says, ‘he will come to make his blessings flow as far as the curse is found’. Similarly, with Jeremiah 31 – the New Covenant has already begun with Jesus 1st coming, but the fullness of it will not be realized until his 2nd coming. This is important because – yes – there WILL be a day when every last person in God’s covenant community (i.e. the Church) will be born-again and there will be no mixture of unbelievers in our midst who need to be ‘taught’ because every single person will have his law written on their hearts as Jeremiah 31:33-34 foretold. But Presbyterians/Reformed folks realize that time has not yet come.
This then leads us to the third significant consideration about this New Covenant and Jeremiah 31, which is the presence of various ‘warning passages’ in the New Testament. As a sampling: In Matthew 13, Jesus speaks of tares growing up among the wheat. In Romans 11, the Apostle Paul writes about how Jesus is the vine on which Gentiles were grafted in and they too can but cut off just like the Jews. And perhaps most famous of all – in Hebrews 6, we see that there are those who have experienced all the blessings of the covenant community, yet they ultimately leave the faith behind. Now, our Arminian friends would argue these passages show that someone was genuinely saved but can lose their salvation. But then we also have other passages that point to what is known as ‘security of the believer’/‘perseverance of the saints’ and is sometimes, a bit reductionistically, referred to as ‘once saved, always saved’ (John 10:27-29; Eph. 4:30; Romans 8:38-39; etc). So you see, as a Baptist, at best I saw these warning passages as ‘hypotheticals’ to keep God’s true people in the covenant community, but I honestly didn’t have a great argument for why we’d have these warning passages if people cannot lose their salvation. Yet, as I wrestled with the Presbyterian/paedobaptist understanding of Jeremiah 31 – all these things started to make sense.
I came to believe that there ARE indeed those who are members of Christ’s Church – who in every way seem to be (outwardly) a part of God’s New Covenant people – but who were never truly (inwardly) born again. There’s coming a day when we will no longer have this problem of hypocrisy/apostates (when Jesus returns), but in the meantime we still live in a broken world, marred by sin & its effects, and the New Covenant is a mixed community – some tares among the wheat. Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t strive for a more ‘pure’ community! (That’s why God has given us the tool of church discipline & warn of those who leave the faith.) But striving for that pure community does NOT mean we should, as the baptists would argue, do away with the inclusion of our little ones as members of the New Covenant people.
So what does all this have to do with baptism? Well, if we believe Jeremiah 31’s New Covenant promise/people is fully realized now, then we will be baptists who only baptize believers. One problem with this, however, is we don’t have ‘regeneration goggles’ (i.e. we cannot read people’s hearts). So even (credo)baptists have to recognize that they at times will baptize, admit into church membership, etc. folks who will show themselves to have outwardly been a part of the church, though not inwardly. But beyond that, this is what leads Baptists to refuse to baptize the children of believers – because, from their perspective, these little ones are not able to give a ‘credible profession of faith’, and Baptists don’t want to add any risk of impurity to the covenant people of God.
So, what happened for me is that I came to realize that what makes the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant wasn’t the fact that it used to be mixed (believers & some unbelievers) and now it’s not. The difference is that the old (Mosaic) covenant had shadows, and we now have the substance that these types/shadows pointed toward – which is Jesus (Colossians 2:17). This then helped bridge the gap for me as to why Presbyterians (and other Reformed types) baptize their children even without any profession of faith from those kids. Because, as I’ve talked about in greater length in my previous posts, God’s people have always included believers and their children. The New Covenant is actually no different in that regard. So contrary to the Baptist interpretation of Jeremiah 31 – nowhere have our children actually been ‘put out’ of the covenant. And just like they receive the covenant sign of circumcision in the past, they should now receive the covenant sign of baptism to show they are still a part of God’s people. I always liked how my friend Scott Davis puts it: When you think of the term ‘NEW Covenant’ it doesn’t mean that it is wholesale different from what came before it. It’s like when you buy Windex, and it says “New & Improved!” on the label. We know the substance is still the same – you’re getting Windex. It isn’t totally unrelated to what came before it. Yet there’s something about it that makes it better than the old.
So, as you can see, at the end of the day this discussion on Jeremiah 31 isn’t so much the definitive argument FOR paedobaptism as it the an argument that the credobaptist position is not the best interpretation. And the reason it was so important in my journey is that, before I was able to accept the arguments I made in my previous posts, I had to see the flaws in my credobaptist interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 first. How we understand the ‘newness’ of the New Covenant is central to this.
As always, I am happy to answer any questions and would just ask everyone to keep the conversation respectful. I would also encourage you, if you haven’t, to go back and read my previous posts (linked below) because there’s multiple layers to these things to be considered. Thanks for reading, and I look forward to that day when all of us – credo & paedobaptists alike – will be part of that perfected New Covenant community in the New Heavens & New Earth. 
Share This Article
