|
Overview of the Book:
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New
Covenant in Christ
As the various arguments from the book are dealt with
one at a time, this top-down approach will also be presented for
those who would like to take a look at the book from this direction.
This overview can be helpful for those interested in a book review
type of summary. It can also be a great starting point for
seminarians looking for good topics to do term papers on. If
you have read the book, see how this critique squares with your
evaluation of the book; if you have not read the book yet, this can
provide some items to look for as you go through it.
As a paedo-baptist the following overview consists of
three main points in which I believe the book falls short in
portraying biblical teaching. These are the main shortcomings
of the book which have been arrived at by structuring the arguments
as found in the outline in the above
examination. If my reading of the book is correct, and if
these three arguments do in fact fall short, then the book as a
whole fails to disprove the practice of infant baptism.
The three points of the overview are as follows:
The New Covenant did not annul the Abrahamic
covenant.
The New Covenant annulled the Mosaic covenant, not
the Abrahamic. This is a key aspect. If the Abrahamic
covenant has not been annulled, then baptism could well be the New
Testament sign of that covenant.
Dr. Wellum states as fact on a number of occasions
that the Abrahamic covenant became a part of the Mosaic covenant,
but it isn't proven anywhere in the book. This is a serious
shortcoming of the book which leaves his overall thesis
insufficiently defended.
Note: this first point has been posted at the theological
forum TheologyOnLine.com. To review comments made and
to submit remarks in that forum
click here.
Baptism is not the sign of the New Covenant.
Not all biblical covenants have signs. The New
Covenant is one of these. The only theologians I am aware of
who speak of baptism as being a sign of a covenant are covenantal
theologians. Their justification for this consists of their
interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12 as well as additional biblical
considerations. Dr. Wellum and his
colleagues really should develop and present their case in this
regard. Otherwise, as it currently stands the very subtitle of this
book, a phrase that appears numerous times throughout the pages of
the book, namely baptism as a sign of a covenant is only defined and
defended by covenantal theology -- the very theology which this
book works so hard to disprove.
The book states frequently (reference the sub-title
of the book) that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, but it
does not prove this from the Scriptures.
Note: this second point has been posted at the same theological
forum TheologyOnLine.com. To review comments made and
to submit remarks in that forum
click here.
The New Covenant is not the same as the church.
The new covenant is one way God defines His
relationship with all believers
in
the New Testament age. This is specifically
stated to be true of the new covenant when Jeremiah says they shall
all know me (Jeremiah 31:34). It is taught there that all members
of the new covenant will be believers, but it is not taught anywhere
that this new covenant is, in fact, synonymous with the church.
The Abrahamic covenant continues into the New
Testament era. Just as it defined who the people of God were
in the Old Testament, it continues to do so in the New Testament.
This belief that the church and the New Covenant are
one and the same is a tenet of every Baptist church. However,
in spite of the fact that the book Believer's Baptism goes
into the topic of baptism in wonderful detail, it does not
conclusively prove this to be true.
Note: this third point has been posted at the same theological
forum TheologyOnLine.com. To review comments made and
to submit remarks in that forum
click here.
Click here to email a copy of this page to a friend.
The Baptism Debates
Infant Baptism Main Page
|