If you want to understand what the Bible teaches about baptism or any other subject, you should begin the process in the Old Testament. This represents a major difference be­tween Baptists and paedobaptists. Reformed people read the Bible as one book from the perspective of promise and fulfillment. In regards to baptism, if you begin the exegeti­cal process in the Old Testament from the perspective of promise and fulfillment, then you will likely end up a paedobaptist. In contrast, if you stress the newness of the new covenant to the point that the new covenant is cut off from the Abrahamic covenant, then you will likely end up a Baptist.

Is the new covenant the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant? An­other way of asking this question: Is there continuity within the covenant of grace between the Old and the New Testaments? If all the prom­ises of the Old Testament are ful­filled through Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that the new cov­enant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Although this thesis is reasonable and logical we must ask ourselves if it is Biblical. I will demonstrate from the Scrip­tures that the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, and that there is continu­ity between the Abrahamic cov­enant and the new covenant.

The first time that we read about the promise that God will redeem his people is in Genesis 3:15.

And I will put enmity between you and the women, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

This verse teaches that there are essentially two seeds. First, there is the seed of Satan, and second, there is the seed of the woman. The seed of the woman is in reference to Christ. He will come from the woman (Mary), and through Jesus Christ, Satan will receive a mortal wound to his head. Christ will over­come Satan, but in the process of inflicting this fatal wound upon Sa­tan, Christ will also receive a wound, but He will overcome this wound as if it was only a wound to His heel. This verse serves as a lens for understanding the unfolding of redemptive history. In this verse God has promised to bring salvation through the seed of the woman. As we read our Bibles we look for the fulfillment of this promise.

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7

You should notice that the Abrahamic covenant is eternal; this means that the cov­enant is still in place. If the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, then how does it continue apart from the new covenant? Our un­derstanding of God’s redemptive plan must seriously take into consid­eration the eternal nature of the covenant of grace with Abraham. This covenant continues to shape the spiritual reality that we experi­ence in Christ.

This promise was made in conjunc­tion with the giving of circumcision as a sign and seal of this promise. We know that circumcision no longer has a place in the New Tes­tament, but what about the Abrahamic covenant? Is God a liar? Has God broken His promise to maintain the Abrahamic cov­enant for eternity, or is it possible that with the forward movement of redemptive history, namely the es­tablishment of the new covenant in Christ’s blood, that Jesus has ful­filled the Abrahamic covenant? If the new covenant established in Christ’s blood is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, then what has happened in regard to the ex­ternal sign and seal of the cov­enant? Has the external sign and seal completely disappeared?

If it is true that the Abrahamic cov­enant has been fulfilled through Jesus Christ and the establishment of the new covenant, then it only stands to reason that the sign and seal associated with the new cov­enant replaces the former sign and seal of covenant membership. The change in the sign and seal of cov­enant membership serves as a wit­ness regarding the forward move­ment of redemptive history.

From the Scriptures it can be dem­onstrated that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The most basic promise associated with the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled through the new covenant, namely that I will be your God and you will be My people.

I will establish My covenant be­tween Me and you and your de­scendants after you throughout their generations for an everlast­ing covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7

This statement is the heart of the covenant of grace in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I will be your God and you will be my people. Beginning with the Abrahamic covenant we can trace God’s promise through the Old Tes­tament and into the new covenant. This promise is fulfilled in the new covenant.

Jeremiah 31:33:

But this is the cov­enant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 37:26, 27:

Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlast­ing covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tab­ernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The author of Hebrews links the work of Christ originally established with Abraham and his descendants to a better covenant fulfilled in Christ.

Hebrews 8:10:

For this is the cov­enant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Revelation 21:3:

And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, Be­hold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

In regards to God’s purpose these verses demonstrate the continuity within the covenant of grace. In the Old Testament the promise “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” was never fully realized except in a provisional way. The people of God looked forward to the fulfillment of this promise. This promise was realized through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, whereby Jesus established the new covenant in His blood. As the result of Christ’s redemptive work, Jesus has given His Spirit in fulfillment of this promise.

2 Corinthians 6:16:

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God has said: 'I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'

The apostle Paul applies the Old Testament language of the temple to the people of God.

Paul applies the Old Testament lan­guage associated with the covenant of grace to the new covenant. There should be no doubt that Paul understands the new covenant as the fulfillment of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament.

In Galatians 3:15, 16 the apostle Paul appeals to the promises spo­ken to Abraham and to his seed. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The point that Paul is making has to do with the continu­ity of the Abrahamic covenant.

Paul clarifies this in verse 17 The law, introduced four hundred thirty years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God, and thereby do away with the promise. The law is in reference to Sinai and the Mosaic economy. The law is in ref­erence to the whole system associated with the meeting between God and Moses on Mount Sinai.

In verse 18, Paul makes the explicit claim that the promise, the inherit­ance, was not realized through the law; but God gave it to Abraham through a promise. If the inherit­ance does not depend on the law, then what was the purpose of the law?

Four hundred thirty years after Abraham, the law was added, until the time that the Seed would come. Paul is clear that the law was incapable of imparting life, because the law was incapable of producing righteousness. The law revealed our transgressions and served as a means of driving us to Christ. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be jus­tified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Now that faith has come is in conjunction with the coming of the Seed, Christ. With the coming of the Seed, Christ, the promise that God made to Abraham, is realized. This is in view in verses 26-29.

With the coming of Christ and the realization of the promise, Paul employs the new covenant language of baptism. With the move­ment from promise to fulfillment, the sign and seal of circumcision has been replaced with the sign and seal of baptism.

Baptism is the sign and seal of the new covenant established through the blood of Christ. This covenant is the fulfillment of what has come be­fore. In the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15, and then with the restatement of this covenant and the giving of circumcision in chapter 17 as the sign and seal of the covenant member­ship, God established the pattern whereby the sign and seal would be applied. Every male under the au­thority of the covenant head, the Father, was circumcised.

With the forward movement of re­demptive history, the sign and seal is no longer gender specific. In the new covenant, the sign and seal of covenant membership is applied to both males and females, because it speaks of better promises (Hebrews 8:6). In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God dwelt above the mercy seat, which rested on top of the ark of the covenant. As a result, God dwelt among His people, but there was distance between the special presence of God and the people. Now that Christ has come and atoned for the sins of His people, the special presence of God dwells in his people. “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

This is what the author of Hebrews is speaking of when he says that the new covenant is made up of better promises. Through the new covenant, the promises contained in the Old Testament are realized and fulfilled in Christ and God dwells in His people by His Spirit. The re­placement of circumcision by bap­tism as the sign and seal, and the application of the sign and seal to include both males and females speaks of that which Christ has al­ready accomplished, the better fulfillment. The change in the sign and seal of covenant membership marks the forward movement of redemptive history.

This is a covenantal, or Reformed, way of reading the Bible. The ques­tion that you have to wrestle with is, which way is really Biblical? Is the new covenant the fulfillment of what has already been promised in the Abrahamic covenant, or is the new covenant completely new? This is an issue that will impact one’s view of baptism.

The Baptist approach emphasizes the discontinuity between the Old and the New Testaments. Dispen­sational Baptists draw an even sharper line between the Old Testament and the New Testament; they draw a sharp line between Is­rael as God’s people in the Old Tes­tament and the Church as God’s people in the New Testament. Dispensationalists do not under­stand the church in the New Testa­ment to be spiritual Israel; as a re­sult they deny that the new cov­enant is the fulfillment of all that has come before. In conclusion, the debate behind the debate is over the appropriate reading of the Scrip­tures.

The paedobaptist approach empha­sizes continuity in purpose between the Old and the New Testaments (I will be your God and you will be my people).

Critics will likely accuse me of im­posing my system of doctrine on the Scriptures, but in my defense I will argue that I am interpreting the Bible according to the way that the New Testament interprets the Old.

This is why New Testament au­thors continually refer to and quote Old Testament texts. For example, in the book of Hebrews almost half of the verses are in reference to Old Testament texts or quotations of Old Testament texts. It is helpful to think of the New Testament as a commentary on the Old Testament. For this reason the Biblical inter­preter should proceed from the ba­sis of promise and fulfillment, and not automatically proceed from the basis of discontinuity between the Old and the New Testaments.

Should Infants of Believers be Baptized?⤒🔗

In the Old Testament circumcision was the sacrament of initiation and reception into the covenant commu­nity. Circumcision defined the cov­enant community; it was the sign and seal of covenant membership. In this article, I will argue that bap­tism has replaced circumcision as the sacrament of initiation and re­ception into the covenant commu­nity. Just like circumcision was ap­plied to the male children born in this community, likewise baptism should be applied to all the children born in the new covenant commu­nity, the church.

In order for this to be true, there are at least two points that must be demonstrated from the Scriptures. First, it must be demonstrated that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Cir­cumcision had its beginning in the formal establishment of the Abrahamic covenant. If the struc­ture associated with the Abrahamic covenant continues at some level into the new covenant, then it is necessary that we establish a rela­tionship between the two cov­enants. Second, it is necessary to demonstrate from the Bible that there is a relationship between cir­cumcision and baptism.

If these two premises can be estab­lished from Scriptures, then there should be no doubt that the baptism of children born in the church is biblical unless the Bible explicitly forbids such a practice. This is very compelling if you understand that the new covenant is the fulfill­ment of the Abrahamic.

The New Covenant as Fulfillment of the Old←⤒🔗

In Galatians 3:6-9, Paul writes:

Consider Abraham: He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Understand, then, that those who believe are chil­dren of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith (emphasis added).

If we had no other Scripture to sup­port the thesis that the new cov­enant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic we would need to go no further. This passage provides us with all the biblical evidence that we need to establish the connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. For ex­ample: God, “...announced the gos­pel in advance to Abraham.” In addition to this Paul, says, “...those who believe are children of Abraham. So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” This is all the evidence that we need to demon­strate the connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant.

Paul goes on to write in Galatians 3:14-16:

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Let me take an example from everyday. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human cov­enant that has been duly estab­lished, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

In this passage Paul states explic­itly that just as a human covenant cannot be set aside or added to, so it is with the covenant that God established with Abraham. The promise established with Abraham is eternal, it is fulfilled in Christ, through the church.

Moderns day dispensationalists be­lieve that the Abrahamic covenant is eternal as well, but they reject the idea that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled through the new covenant. Since they reject this idea, they also reject the idea that baptism has re­placed circumcision.

From Paul’s teaching it should be explicit that the promise made to Abraham is realized through Jesus Christ and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are one and the same covenant. The new covenant is the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, “mean­ing one person, who is Christ.” Therefore the church is the new Israel.

Galatians 3:29: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” There should be no doubt what Paul teaches about this subject. Paul sees everyone belong­ing to Christ as Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. One might ask, heirs according to what promise, the promise made to Abraham? (Refer back to 3:8, “All nations will be blessed through you” and then again in verse 14 the promise of the Spirit.)

“Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham‘s seed, and heirs accord­ing to the promise.” Could it be any more clear? The promise made to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. If you believe, then you are an heir to Abraham. The new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic cov­enant.

The Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism←⤒🔗

The apostle Paul makes an overt connection between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2:11-13. In this passage, Paul goes from cir­cumcision to baptism back to cir­cumcision.

In Him you were also cir­cumcised with the circumci­sion made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the cir­cumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, hav­ing forgiven you all tres­passes.

There is no doubt that Paul sees a relationship between circumci­sion and baptism in this passage. The relationship between the two extends to their role as a sign and seal. Just as circumcision involved the cutting away of the flesh, which portrayed an internal cut­ting away of the sinful nature by the Spirit of Christ, likewise bap­tism signifies the washing away of our sin, a burial of the old sinful nature and a resurrection unto new life. Both sacraments signi­fied the promise of internal wash­ing and renewal unto new life. Both sacraments were condi­tioned by faith; the promise was received through faith.

If the new covenant is the fulfill­ment of the Abrahamic covenant and baptism replaces circumci­sion as the covenant sign and seal, then it is important that the covenant sign and seal be applied to the children of believers as it was in Abraham’s day. The Scrip­tures prescribe the biblical prac­tice for administering circumci­sion. Likewise the only change associated with baptism is the fact that baptism is not gender spe­cific. Unlike circumcision, bap­tism is intended for both males and females.

Given the fact that the first century church was overwhelmingly Jew­ish, it would have been necessary for Peter and the apostles to restrain the Jewish converts from baptizing their children. Imagine a Jew who claimed Abraham as his father, re­alizing that the promise made to Abraham was realized through faith in Christ, and the sign and seal of circumcision had been replaced by baptism. The Jewish convert would have applied the sign and seal to his children. There is no doubt that converted Jews would have applied the covenant sign and seal to their children unless otherwise instructed to withhold the sign and seal from their children. If the application of the covenant sign and seal changed this dramatically then there should be no doubt that the New Testa­ment would not be silent on this matter. Just because modern day Baptists assume discontinuity does not mean that Jewish converts would have assumed discontinuity.

Acts 2:38, 39,

Peter replied, ‘Re­pent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call’ (emphasis added).

There is nothing in Peter’s instruc­tions that would have persuaded Jewish converts to withhold bap­tism from their children. It was commonly understood that God had worked through family units. The family unit was the main way that the faith had been passed on in the Old Testament; this pattern contin­ues into the New Testament. As a result any objection made against infant baptism could also be made against infant circumcision!

In conclusion, we see how God continues to work through house­holds in the New Testament, and we see how baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and seal of initiation and member­ship in the covenant community. Acts 16:13-15:

On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gath­ered there. One of those lis­tening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you con­sider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

There is no mention that the mem­bers of Lydia’s household believed; yet they were all baptized, because this was the long-established pat­tern from the time of Abraham. God continues to work through house­holds, even as new people are grafted into the church from outside the covenant community. This long­standing pattern has continued into the New Testament and into this age. Any objection made against infant baptism could also be made against infant circumcision.

This should cause objective people to reconsider their objections. If the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, and if baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and seal of membership in the covenant com­munity, then it would only make sense that the New Testament would have to forbid the application of baptism to children born in the covenant, if this was God’s intent. But the New Testament never for­bids the application of the covenant sign and seal to children born in the covenant community; therefore on what basis would you withhold the sign and seal of membership to the children born in the church?