Dr. Alan J. Dunn

THE NEW COVENANT PEOPLE OF GOD AND PAEDOBAPTISM¹ (2)
June 2015

What About “The Principle of “Headship?”

The Paedobaptist rightly emphasizes “the principle of headship.” The foundational division of mankind into two “seeds” (see Gen 3:15), establishes the foundational principle of “federal, or covenantal, headship.” All men are either fallen in Adam, the head of the seed of the serpent, or redeemed in Christ, the head of the seed of the woman (Rom 5:12-21; Rev 12). The headship principle is also operative in God’s covenantal dealings with His people in that God makes promises to a covenant head who represents a specific community which is legally identified with that head. This is why we identify the covenants with individual men: the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic covenants. As it goes with the covenant head, so it goes with the covenant community. Our Paedobaptist brethren claim that the principle of federal headship yet pertains to the New Covenant and justifies “household baptisms” whereby all the members of a family are enveloped within the New Covenant on the basis of the faith of the family head: the husband/father.

Jeremiah, however, refutes that claim, and that in the immediate context of Jeremiah 31:31-34, in the two preceding verses we read,

In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge (Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Evidently those in exile expressed their sense of injustice using this well-known proverbial saying. This “proverb” is reiterated in Ezekiel 18:2. The Lord then refutes its relevance in verse 3: ‘As I live,’ declares the Lord, GOD, ‘you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.’ This proverb presumed the headship principle. Those in exile were complaining that they were suffering for sins committed by their fathers. The Lord, in Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18, detaches the assumed connection between fathers and sons and states that each stands accountable to God for himself. The principle is stated in Ezekiel 18:20b, the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Now, this is not to invalidate the parental influences upon the souls of their children which is expressed in the Second Commandment which warns against the generational impact of idolatry. It is the nature of parenting that we will bring up our children under the influence of the G/god we worship and the value system which always accompanies man’s service to his deity. If we serve Mammon, we will raise our children to value those activities that promise to give material prosperity. Nevertheless, when it comes to our standing before the Lord, our children are neither consigned to damnation because of our unbelief nor are they granted salvation because of our faith. Each of us must stand before the Lord in our respective generation, accountable to Him for ourselves.

John the Baptist cut the cord of presumed familial status when he told his hearers. “Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:8). Jesus likewise tells us that He brings a sword which severs even the closest domestic relationships and make spiritual enemies out of spouses, parents and children, and siblings (Matthew 10:34-37). Jesus does not encourage us to think that if we are believers, we can presume that our children will be believers too. He prepares us for the possibility of encountering the reality of the two seeds within our own homes. In fact, He redefines the very meaning of the word family. In Luke 8:19-21 Jesus is told that His mother and brothers were looking for Him, But He answered and said to them, ‘My mother and My brothers are these who hear the Word of God and do it’ (v21). It is not insignificant that the word most frequently used in the New Testament to speak of the church is brethren. This is in keeping with what we have already seen: that the New Testament redefines the vocabulary of seed and children according to resurrection realities. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ (John 3:6-7). In the New Covenant, the principle of headship is operative in Christ in that each believer is joined to Jesus, the head of the church (Ephesians 5:23).

Our Paedobaptist brethren argue that Abrahamic circumcision is the Old Testament type of New Covenant baptism.² They then present us with a paradigm along these lines: as Abraham circumcised his seed, so Christian man/father is to baptize his seed. This parallel, however, is untenable. It is true Abraham, as the head of the Abrahamic Covenant, did circumcise his seed and all of Abraham’s physical seed were to be circumcised, in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.³ Let me pose a question: Who is the head of the New Covenant? Is the Christian man/father the head of the New Covenant? No, Jesus Christ is the head of the New Covenant. Therefore the correct parallel is as follows: as Abraham circumcised his seed, so Jesus circumcises, that is, regenerates His seed (see Colossians 2:11).⁴ All who are in the New Covenant have their standing before God in immediate union with Christ, not on the basis of physical descent from Abraham, nor physical descent from a believing parent. If those who heard John the Baptist were told not to claim any privilege with God because they had Abraham, the father of faith, as their father (Luke 3:8), what would John the Baptist say to us about any supposed benefit derived from our natural fathers, even if they be men of genuine faith?

What About Peter’s Words “for You and Your Children?”

Our Paedobaptist brethren often cite Acts 2:39 as proof that New Covenant status is granted to you and to your children. What is the context of verse 39? Peter’s hearers, many of whom had a hand in the crucifixion of Jesus (v23), are indicted for murdering the Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified (v36). They were convicted of their sin, and they were pierced to the heart (v37). In this state of Spirit-wrought conviction of sin, they then asked Peter what they should do in response to their obvious guilt. They had murdered the Messiah! And, on top of that, they had included their own children in their crime by bringing them to share in their culpability. In Matthew 27:25 they had demanded Jesus’ death and exclaimed, His blood shall be on us and on our children! Peter responded to these people,

Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself (Acts 2:38-39).

Peter gives a layered answer, and each layer builds upon the preceding layer. First, repent. Repentance is always coupled with faith. At the moment a sinner turns to God in repentance by faith in Jesus Christ, s/he is “saved.”⁵ With the initial exercise of faith in Christ, the believer is justified. Justification entails both the forgiveness of sin and the imputed righteousness of Jesus in which we stand legally right with God.⁶

Having then repented, and by implication, having also believed, the now justified believer is to be baptized for the forgiveness of [her/his] sins. Peter is not holding out forgiveness as the promised result of having been baptized, but is prescribing baptism in view of them having repented and believed, and so too having been forgiven.⁷ Peter draws upon what he learned of baptism from John the Baptist and from Jesus in the early days of Jesus’ ministry when Jesus’ ministry of baptism overlapped that of John the Baptist (see John 4:1-2). Peter has the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) in mind as well. As he had learned some years earlier from John the Baptist and Jesus, he prescribed baptism for repentant believers, but now in the name of Jesus Christ. As John the Baptist who spoke of the arrival of the age of the Spirit, Peter likewise encourages his hearers with the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit. We can perceive gospel promises here. The unconverted are called to repentance and are promised forgiveness (justification). The now repentant believer, who in evangelical obedience obeys Jesus’ apostle and is baptized, is promised the gift of the Holy Spirit (sanctification in full-orbed New Covenant life and blessing).

Peter then elaborates on this gospel promise (v39) and informs his hearers that New Covenant salvation is now being offered to all men. He moves on from his hearers in concentric circles which increasingly widens so as to encompass the world. This promise is for you – Peter’s hearers. This promise is for your children. Peter encouraged these men who had a hand in murdering the Messiah and so recklessly brought the guilt of the Messiah’s blood on their children (Matthew 27:25). Are their children told that they are now given New Covenant status and that they should be baptized on the basis of the faith of their parents? No, their children are given what is given to their parents: the promise. To be given a promise is one thing. To receive a promise is another. How is a promise received? By faith. Peter was telling these Messiah murderers that they could communicate to their children the very same message of gospel hope that Peter was preaching to them. Their children, like them, are encouraged to repent and believe the gospel. We are to evangelize our children and tell them that the promises which are ours in Jesus are being graciously given to them! We are to direct their faith to Jesus.

When we examine the text, we do not hear Peter telling the Jerusalem converts that their children are now in the New Covenant on the basis of their parent’s faith, but that their children are given the same gospel promise as they, and are called to repent and believe and follow Jesus. Not only their children, but all men everywhere. Instead of being told that guilt abides upon their children, these people were given the privilege of telling their children about God’s gracious promise of forgiveness and New Covenant blessing in Christ. In the New Covenant, the physical family becomes a powerful institution of evangelism.⁸

But Peter does not stop there. Peter continues to give yet another layered response as he speaks of you, your children, and all who are far off. Peter knows that the Old Testament foretold not only of the sufferings and glory of the Messiah, but also of the global expansion of God’s redemptive kingdom (see Luke 24:44-48). So Peter therefore includes all who are far off among the recipients of this gospel promise. All who are far off describes not only those Jews who were in Jerusalem assembled from the surrounding nations (see Acts 2:9-11) but also the Gentiles themselves (see Eph 2:17 citing Isa 57:19). The resurrection and exaltation of the crucified Messiah is to be declared to all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike. All men are to hear the free offer of the gospel. As that gospel goes forth to the next generation and to the ends of the earth, the Lord our God will [effectually] call as many as He sovereignly determines, as He builds His church in this present age before His Second Coming. It is evident that this last phrase concerning the calling of the Lord conditions and qualifies those previously identified by Peter. Any Gentile, any proselyte, any Jew, any of their children, and any of them who repent of sin and believe in the risen Lord Jesus, are to be baptized in His name. Those baptized believers were then incorporated into the Jerusalem church.

In Acts 2:41-47 Luke backs off and gives us a panoramic sweep of the time immediately after the Day of Pentecost.⁹

So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:41-42).

Luke gives us the sequence by which the local church in Jerusalem was formed, a procedure which matches the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, 1) make disciples; 2) baptize those disciples in the name of the Triune God; 3) gather those disciples in the presence of Jesus; and 4) instruct them as to how to live in obedience to His commands.

What About “Household Baptisms?”

When it comes to the so-called “household baptisms,” we discern this same Great Commission procedure. A composite picture of how the apostles followed the Great Commission can be seen by a comparison of the household baptisms. The Commission is fulfilled in those who 1) hear of the Word, 2) receive Christ by faith, 3) are baptized and then 4) faithfully gather with the church. Luke does not mention all of these components every time he tells us of a household baptism, but the composite picture shows that all of the elements of the Commission were in fact present on each occasion.

The following chart shows the composite picture of Luke’s record of “household baptisms.” In two of the first four which Luke records in Acts, all four of the components of the Great Commission are evident. We can deduce that the Great Commission was likewise carried out in the remaining two instances in Acts as well as in the case of Stephanas.

When the total witness of Acts is taken into consideration, we are compelled to recognize that the apostles did just what the risen Lord commissioned them to do. They preached the gospel in the confidence that the Spirit will use the foolishness of the preaching preached to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:21). They then baptized those who believed. They then gathered those baptized disciples together and organized them into a church under the Lordship of King Jesus to be taught how to live in obedience to Him. This composite testimony of “household baptisms” mitigates the notion that we should advance the kingdom of Christ by the supposed principle of domestic headship.¹⁰ We are rather to indiscriminately proclaim the good news of Christ’s resurrection, calling every hearer, regardless of age, race, gender, socio-economic standing or domestic relations, to repentance and faith which issues into discipleship to Jesus Christ which is evidenced by biblical churchmanship.

Aren’t Our Children “Sanctified” and “Holy?”

Let us consider one last text which Paedobaptists often claim as a justification for infant baptism: 1 Corinthians 7:14.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Paul is telling the Corinthian Christian that even though he/she is married to an unbeliever, their marriage is nonetheless legitimate and serves the purposes of God. What is unusual is his use of the word sanctified here coupled with the ceremonial term unclean. Paul says the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified or holy. Both of these words are derived from the same Greek term.¹¹ Paul cannot be speaking of the sanctification entailed in salvation, because the believer’s spouse is explicitly said to be an unconverted unbeliever. This implication is that the believer’s children are likewise, if not unbelieving, at least not included among those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:2). How can an unbeliever be sanctified?

Paul’s use of sanctify is unusual in 1 Corinthians 7:14. The essential meaning of sanctify is “the quality of persons or things that can be brought near or into God’s presence: (1) of things set apart for God’s purpose, “dedicated,” “sacred.” “holy,” the opposite of koino,j: not consecrated, common” (Friberg’s Lexicon). We use “sanctify” in this sense when we speak of “the sanctity of life.” Paul tells the believer that s/he can embrace her/his family as a good institution established by God and set apart for His glory as our Creator. The family, even when comprised of unbelievers, still glorifies God and serves His original pre-Fall purposes. The believer’s family members are in their rightful places, and “set apart” unto God’s glorious purposes.

Paul speaks of the sanctity of that which is set apart unto God’s creation goodness, rather the sanctity unto His redemption holiness. It is in this sense that we first encounter the term sanctify in Genesis 2:3. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Here sanctify describes something set apart from the common unto God’s presence and purpose: the Sabbath. A portion of the very common phenomenon of time was nevertheless sanctified, set apart for God’s purpose, and that at a time before the entrance of sin into the world. God’s creation is ordered and designed to function according to His good purposes. When the components of creation function according to God’s original order and purpose, we can say that they are sanctified, set aright according to God’s design.

Paul uses the term sanctified in a similar way in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 where he legitimizes the essential goodness of God’s creation, including marriage. Satan’s strategy against man is to pervert and twist the good things created by God. But the believer receives those good things in keeping with God’s original purposes, and while validating God’s creation purposes for marriage and foods, the Christian elevates the values of creation as s/he receives created blessings with gratitude; for (they are) sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (v4b-5). Paul refutes asceticism (see Col 2:20-23) and legitimizes the Christian’s engagements with the good things of God’s common-grace blessings. “God is not at war with Creation, but with sin.”¹² Not only are God’s common-grace blessings sanctified when we embrace them according to God’s good purposes, the believer is also encouraged to infuse the good things of creation with redemptive dynamics and purpose, elevating and ennobling them in service to Christ. This is in keeping with God’s ultimate purpose to bring Creation to share in the eschatological glory of the sons of God (Rom 8:19-21).

When we return to 1 Corinthians 7:14, we see that Paul in context, is not talking about the church or church membership, but marriage and the family. He assures the Corinthian Christian that his/her family is yet ordered according to God’s good creation purpose and is in that sense, “holy.” He encourages the believer to then bring redemptive and gracious influences upon their marriage and parenting. Peter speaks of this sanctifying influence in 1 Peter 3:1-6, where we see that the believing wife is to endeavor to “win” her disobedient husband. The family of the unconverted man whose wife loves him and prays for him and their children, is blessed by her sanctifying presence and influence. If the good things of creation are sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer, we can envision the believing spouse-parent praying for and witnessing to his/her unconverted family members in the hope that they, too, will turn in repentance from sin and come by faith to Jesus Christ.

To proof-text 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a justification for including the children of a believing parent in the membership of the church, is to take the text out of context and to use it as a pretext. It is also a form of special-pleading, for if we are to welcome the unbelieving infant of the Christian parent, why would we not also welcome the unbelieving spouse? When our Paedobaptist brethren cite 1 Corinthians 7:14 and suggest that the believing parent is justified to baptize their child because the child is sanctified and holy, they are taking a text which concerns the family and applying it to the church and misunderstanding how Paul uses sanctify here.¹³ If the term sanctify in 1 Corinthian 7:14 justifies baptizing the believer’s infant, then we would be hard pressed to deny baptism to the believer’s unbelieving spouse who is equally as sanctified as the unbelieving child.

Conclusion

This matter of how we view our children is highly emotionally charged and a delicate matter. To imagine any man eternally separated from Christ is grievously repulsive. To think of our parents and especially of our children in those terms is absolutely horrifying, the very thought causes profound dissonance of heart, for these are the ones Scripture and nature tells us to love. But the call to discipleship is a radical call which requires us to give our total allegiance to Jesus. If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26). We cannot be mistaken as to how the Kingdom advances in our present epoch of Redemptive History. We cannot minimize the qualification for entrance into Christ’s kingdom nor make exceptions, even in the case of our most precious loved ones. We must come to terms with Jesus’ words:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ (John 3:5-7).

Every child who hears the gospel is called to believe in Jesus. Many of Christ’s choice servants came to faith as children. Scripture situates the believing child in the home where s/he expresses faith and demonstrates discipleship in the context of the family. As the young disciple matures, s/he arrives at that time when s/he can have independent membership in all of God’s constituted human institutions of authority: not only the Family, but also the State and the Church. When the young disciple is prepared to assume not only the privileges, but also the responsibilities as well as the liabilities of church membership, it is then that the ordinance of baptism comes to play. In baptism the disciple publically identifies with Jesus in His death and resurrection, receives the Lord’s sacramental testimony of his/her union with Christ, and emerges from the waters of baptism to be formally, covenantally united to Jesus’ people. In the New Testament, we find no support for a disciple of Jesus who claims to follow Him apart from His Church.

I mentioned earlier that I gave very serious consideration to Paedobaptism through the course of my theological pilgrimage into the Reformed faith. I have discovered Baptist ecclesiology to be the more consistent implementation of Reformed hermeneutics and soteriology. In addressing a couple of the more popular Paedobaptist “talking points,” I hope I have been faithful to Scripture, accurate in my representations of Paedobaptism, and graciously respectful of my brethren with whom I differ in this matter. British Reformed Baptists in 1689 intentionally aligned themselves extensively with their Paedobaptist brethren. As an individual Reformed Baptist, I also gladly align myself with my Reformed, evangelical Paedobaptist brethren. We agree on far more than we disagree, as evidenced by a comparison of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. I have learned and continue to learn from gifts that Christ has given to the Paedobaptist church. What I have learned from them has, in many ways, formed the basis of our unity. I cannot agree with them however, in the matter of baptism. This is not because of a lack of respect or love, but because I am convinced that my convictions in this matter are more consistently fashioned by Scripture. I understand the words of Jeremiah 31:34 to preclude Paedobaptism in the New Covenant.

It is in the context of brotherly love and our shared eschatological hope that I have endeavored to interact with a few of the point at which we differ. Let us strive to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:1-6).

_________________________________________
1 This four-part series follows the main outline of A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church by Dr. Sam Waldron (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2004). Although I follow Dr. Waldron’s main outline, I have reshaped the substance of the arguments presented in these articles.

2 Limitations of space precludes a consideration of whether this equating of circumcision with baptism is biblically justified. Baptists also see circumcision as having typological significance. We understand circumcision to typify regeneration. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one outwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God (Romans 2:28-29).

3 Some Paedobaptist brethren assert that the ensuing generations of Israelites were to be circumcised on account of their relationship to their Israelite father, thus envisioning the parallel with Christian man baptizing his seed. But, the Old Covenant members were to be circumcised on account of their tribal relationship to Abraham, not their immediate father per se.

4 See Richard Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12,” ed. Richard C. Barcellos Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2014), 449-474.

5 “Salvation” (solteriology) concerns our being rescued from wrath, sin, and Satan. Scripture informs us that there is a sense in which we have been saved in the past (see Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 4:18); are being saved in the present (see 1 Corinthians 1:18l; 2 Corinthians 5:15); and will be saved in the future (see Romans 5:9; 1 Corinthians 3:13).

6 Note this dual blessing of forgiveness of sin and imputed righteousness in The Second London Baptist Confessional of Faith of 1689, Chapter 11, paragraph 1: “Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. He imputes to them Christ’s active obedience to the whole law and His passive obedience in death. They receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, and rest on Him. They do not possess or produce this faith themselves, it is the gift of God.”

7 This reading of the text translates for the forgiveness (ei,j with the accusative ἄφεσιn) as indicating the reason for, on account of, because of, in view of, having repented and believed. In other words, having repented and having been forgiven, now be baptized. Not, be baptized in order to be forgiven.

8 See my article, “Spanking Evangelism,” (http://www.reformedbaptistfellowship.org/?p=9517). When my children made professions of faith as little ones, we would never question their faith, but sought to affirm their profession and to call them to demonstrate their faith in Christ in the home. We emphasized that we were all disciples of Jesus. As disciples, Jesus was teaching me to be a good Daddy, and teaching them to be a good children. There were times when it was evident to all that I was not such a “good Daddy.” On those occasions, I was compelled to confess my sin and ask for the child’s forgiveness. The child then saw how I was a disciple, under the authority of King Jesus. It was powerfully instructive for the child to see that even Daddy’s sin needs gospel forgiveness. With the little one’s conscience satisfied in the provision of the cross for sinners, we would then pray together, thanking Jesus for His gracious salvation. With our relationship restored by the power of the gospel, we would both resolve afresh to be disciples of Jesus: me as a good Daddy disciple, and the child a good child disciple. I rejoice to see the grace of God in each of my children who are now young adults.

9 So then (μὲν οὖν) indicates that Luke is now giving us a summary of the results of the apostle’s preaching. This being the case, when he says that about three thousand souls were baptized and added that day (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ) in v41, he is not telling us that all three thousand were baptized in the one single day. In Acts 8:1, and on that day (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ) a great persecution began, Luke is not speaking of a single day, but of a period of time, so too in Acts 2:41.

10 On March 23, 2015 Dr. James White (Credobaptist) and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge (Paedobaptist) debated the topic of baptism at The Orlando Grace Church, Orlando, Florida (see http://store.aomin.org/the-baptism-debate-mp3.html to obtain an mp3 recording of the debate). At one point, Dr. Strawbridge asserted that his was a better gospel than Dr. White’s because he could declare to a Muslim that if he were to believe, salvation would not only come to him, but also to his family. Dr. White’s response was, rightfully, forceful. White asserted that experience shows that when a Muslim man is converted, it is more likely that he will be persecuted by his immediate family. The Paedobaptist “household baptism” approach is liable to facilitate the damage presently being done in Muslim evangelism by The Insider Movement, which encourages Muslims to follow “Isa” while remaining within the Islamic context of their family and mosque. Missionaries to Islamic nations concur that Muslims can tolerate a heightened interest in the prophet Isa, but if a man/woman gets baptized… Well, that is a virtual death sentence, which, interestingly, is precisely what Paul teaches us in Romans 6.

11 The verb “to sanctify” is ἁγιάζω. The noun “holy” is ἅγιος.

12 I have heard this axiom expressed on occasion by Albert N. Martin.

13 “Until the consummation the New Covenant will continue to be a mixture of true believers and sanctified unbelievers.” Richard Pratt, “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Greg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), 173. “Sanctified unbelievers” sounds oxymoronic. Pratt evidently does not appreciate how sanctify can describe God’s good ordering of Creation (Genesis 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:5), and he evidently equates “the New Covenant” with “the church.” If sanctify is used in a salvific sense, then Pratt’s “sanctified unbeliever” simply does not exist. An unbeliever is, by definition, not saved and thus, not sanctified in a soteric sense. But if we permit sanctify to be used in a creational sense, then we can find “sanctified unbelievers” in families of believers. Such “sanctified believers” can also be found in the public worship of God (1 Corinthians 14:24-25), but they ought not to be numbered as members of the church.

The New Covenant People of God and Paedobaptism (1)