Baptism as the Sign
of the New Covenant
Dr. Wellum
Dr. Wellum and the book as
a whole refer to baptism as the sign of the new covenant. This
outlook is even written into the subtitle of the book. It is a
key aspect of their theological framework.
Covenant Theology's Response
Not All Covenants Have
Signs
Genesis 9:12-13 spells out
that the rainbow is the sign of God's covenant with Noah (reference
also verse 17). Genesis 17:11 records that circumcision was the
sign of the covenant God made with Abraham.
In Exodus 34:27 God
declares that he has made a covenant with Moses and with the
Israelites (reference also Deuteronomy 4:13). This covenant
included tables of the covenant, the ark of the covenant and the
book of the covenant (2 Kings 23:2). There is no reference anywhere
to a sign of the Mosaic covenant.
God made a covenant with
David (2 Chronicles 7:18). As with the Mosaic covenant, there is no
record of a sign of the Davidic covenant.
From these examples we can
see that not all biblical covenants had a sign to represent that
covenant.
The New Covenant Does Not Have a
Sign
In the biblical references to the new
covenant (Jeremiah 31:29-34, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8-10) there is no
reference to a sign for this covenant.
Not all covenants had signs. One certainly can not simply assume a
covenant will have a sign. If the new covenant was in fact to have
a sign, it would have been clearly identified in Scripture.
In keeping with the on-going effort to
arrive at the truth with respect to these things it should be
pointed out that covenantal theology does not teach baptism is
explicitly identified in the New Testament as the sign of the
Abrahamic covenant. Covenantal theology holds it is indirectly
taught by Scripture to be the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. In
order to understand baptism as the sign of the new covenant we would
need to have at least indirect evidence to that affect.
That the new covenant would not have a
physical sign should probably not surprise us. The new covenant
(unlike the Abrahamic covenant) is purely spiritual in nature and
includes only believers. Why would God assign a physical sign to a
covenant that is completely spiritual? As soon as people would
begin to apply the sign, they would be certain to make mistakes. We
do not know who is saved and who isn’t.
Baptism As the Sign of the New Covenant
Is a Theological Oddity
The signs of biblical covenants are
clearly spelled out by Scripture. The rainbow as the sign of the
Noahic covenant and circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic
covenant are two examples. How is it that baptism is the sign of
the new covenant? It is not identified as such anywhere in the
Bible. As Dr. Wellum has correctly pointed out, in order for
something to be true to Scripture it does not necessarily need to be
specifically stated in Scripture (Believer's Baptism, page 126).
The Trinity is the example he gives here. Does the New Testament
teach perhaps in some indirect manner that baptism is the sign of
the new covenant? I have not been able to find evidence of this
anywhere in the book.
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 the a covenant is only defined and defended by covenantal
theology -- the very theology which this book works so hard to
disprove.
|