What made me choose this book
Recently, I’ve been re-evaluating my thoughts on paedobaptism and have decided to write a paper on infant baptism as a way to organize my thoughts and ultimately draw out a conclusion. I’ve read through a decent amount of books from a paedobaptist position in my studies, yet not so many from a credobaptist position. This has been for two reasons.
- I grew up Baptist, was saved at a church that was credobaptist, and currently attend a church that is credobaptist. I’m very familiar with the arguments made in favor of limiting baptism to those who have made a profession of faith. Thus, being far less familiar with the arguments for paedobaptism, I’ve found it more valuable to study their arguments and learn what their biblical case is.
- Many credobapist books come from a dispensational perspective. For this particular issue, there are a number of presuppositional differences that ultimately seem to lead to a different debate altogether. For example, the paedobaptist sees baptism as the replacement for circumcision as the sign of the covenant. A dispensational theologian would not only deny this, but they would deny that we are under the Abrahamic covenant at all, let along affirm a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework. Having presuppositions and a system of theology that is more in-line with paedobaptists, I’ve found that looking at dispensational views of baptism are not helpful for me, given where I find myself on a number of other issues.
With this all in mind, I choose to read Van Dorn’s book for a few reasons. First, it was recommended to me by one of the elder’s at my church as a book that “uses a Presbyterian hermeneutic to argue for credobaptism.” This alone would have been enough for me to read this. As a convinced student of Covenant Theology, a book that argues against infant baptism from a covenantal perspective is one that I want to read as I study paedobaptism. Second, before this, I had read through a fairly large stack of Reformed authors arguing for baptizing infants. I want to understand both the argument for and against infant baptism, thus I needed to read a book from this camp. Third, the issue of baptism as a whole is an important one. I want to prayerfully understand as much as I can, so that I can lead my family well.
Review
I suppose I’ll start with the verdict and expand on it from there. I enjoyed reading through Van Dorn’s book, and agreed with him on a number of points, however I did not find his central argument to be a convincing one based on what I see revealed in the New Testament.
Van Dorn makes a number of interesting points that I found to be compelling.
First, Van Dorn argues that we ought to allow “baptisms” in the old testament to better inform our understanding of baptism in the new testament. This is not to say that Christian baptism was present before the inauguration of the new covenant, however it acknowledges that at least 2 events in the old testament are explicitly linked to baptism by new testament authors. Those events being the Noahic flood and the crossing of the Red Sea. Though I disagree with the conclusions that Van Dorn ultimately draws from this concept, I have noticed in my studies of baptism, a rather noticeable lack in mentioning these events as baptisms.
Second, Van Dorn draws a lot of attention to the ideas of temples and sanctuaries throughout the Bible. This is not a motif in scripture that had occurred to me before, and is one that I will be more mindful of as I read through the bible.
Third, the idea of the Levitical or “priestly” covenant. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions with respect to this, I do agree that this is a covenant that is often forgotten about in Christian circles, which is unfortunate, especially given it’s importance in the old testament economy.
This all being said, I disagreed with his arguments in a number of ways.
First, while I agree that we ought to have a greater understanding of “baptism” in the old testament, I disagree with the extent that they are linked to Christian baptism. It is correct to say that the Noahic flood and the Red Sea were at least a “type of baptism.” However there are enough differences between them and new covenant baptism that I would not agree with Van Dorn when he makes the claim that baptism predates and existed alongside circumcision, therefore it doesn’t make sense to call it a replacement of the covenant sign. Yes, instances of baptism existed in the old testament, yet there is a stark contrast between the flooding of the earth and the baptism commanded in the new testament. We indeed should study these events when learning about baptism, but they should not be regarded as equal to Christian Baptism.
Second, I do not find the arguments regarding baptism as a sign of the Levitical covenant to be compelling. A case is made that the ritual washings done by the priests in Exodus 29:4 are baptisms and that, therefore, the baptism of Jesus was an ordination ritual into the priesthood. This relies on a few assumptions that I disagree with. First, the ritual washings were indeed a part of the priestly ordinations, however they were not the only part of the ordinations. We, for example are not commanded in the new testament to put on an ephod and be anointed with oil after being baptized. Van Dorn would argue that being clothed with the works of Christ and the indwelling Spirit correspond to these, but then the question must be asked, why do some rituals remain the physical, while others become unseen spiritual realities? Second, the levitical priesthood may have been a type of things to come, however it is not the priesthood of the new covenant. The point of Hebrews is to show that Jesus is a better priest, that He did not need to be cleansed in order to perform His priestly functions. The church is indeed a church of priests, however we are not Levitical priests, as that priesthood was imperfect. Third, it assumes that the Levitical covenant is one distinct from the Mosaic. Van Dorn explains why they ought to be kept distinct, however when I read through Hebrews, I see them taken as being together. The Levitical priesthood existed as a part of the Mosaic economy. The covenant with Simeon was simply that the High Priesthood would perpetually be of his line. The levitical priesthood is ended with the beginning of the new covenant, thus, the covenant is fulfilled and no longer applicable for us today.
Third, the baptism of Jesus being a sign of the Levitical covenant is not a concept that I agree with. A convincing case is made, based on the requirements for entering the priesthood, however it breaks down when a number of things are considered. Though originally, the priests would begin there ministry at the age of 30, this did not continue. As the Bible unfolds, we see the age of entering the priesthood reduced to 25 and eventually 20. Jesus was baptized when He was around 30, however, given the lowered age of entry, this does not seem to be a point made linking Jesus to the priesthood, but rather showing that He was, in the eyes of His people, old enough to be a teacher and a leader. Another point made is that John the Baptist was a Levite. Only Levites could perform the ceremonial washings for priests, therefore it was necessary that Jesus be baptized by John, a Levite. The difficulty that I have with this is that it seems to contradict that which is said in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews points out that the priesthood of Melchizedek, of which Jesus is the High Priest is greater than that of Levi. Levi symbolically “paid tithes” to Melchizedek, being in Abraham’s loins when he paid tithes to the King of Salem (Hebrews 7:4-10). If the baptism of Jesus was a priestly ordination ceremony, this would seem to reverse the hierarchy established in Hebrews. Levi would ordain Melchizedek, perhaps implying that Levi was greater in some capacity. Furthermore, Hebrews would seem to suggest that Jesus was not a priest at the time of His baptism, but as a result of living a perfect life and showing perfect obedience to God (Hebrews 8:4). Jesus did not become a priest therefore, as a result of His Baptism, but as a result of His life. Furthermore, I do wish that he at least would have mentioned the topic of proselyte baptism, which is most commonly understood to be the type of baptism that John was performing.
Fourth, Van Dorn argues that if baptism is a sign of the Levitical covenant, it should only be applied to those who make a profession of faith. Perhaps I need to better understand his point here, but I would disagree with his conclusions. Van Dorn argues against limitting baptism until a certain age (a practice common in some evangelical churches), however, if baptism is indeed a sign of the Levitical covenant, it ought to be applied in a consistent way, i.e. waiting for the recipients to turn 20, 25, or 30, as they had to in the old covenant system.
Fifth, much of his arguments relied on understandings found in apocryphal works. Though he is quick to point out that they are not authoritative, they are used to understand how the Jewish people understood the messiah and the “Levitical covenant.” This is not necessarily cause for concern, however when he accusses paedobaptists in one point of taking on a dispensational hermeneutic and then places such a heavy emphasis on the new testament understanding of baptism based in part on how second-temple jewish people would have understood the priesthood, it’s difficult not to feel that he does the same thing.
Finally, and possibly my biggest frustration, was that it does not seem to address the points that lead to paedobaptism in the first place. Even if baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign of the covenant, where does that leave circumcision? Where does that leave the children of believers? If we are not obligated to circumcize our sons, which I believe is affirmed by Paul in Galatians, why do they no longer recieve a covenant sign as children of the covenant?
This all being said, I was left with a good question that I want to better understand. Van Dorn argues against the idea of baptism (and for that matter, circumcision) as a sign of the covenant of grace, making the point that according to Reformed Covenant Theology, the covenant of grace was inaguarated in the garden, after the fall, and continues to this day. He argues that there was a period between Adam and Abraham where there was no covenant sign given to believers or there children. In essence arguing that the covenant of grace as understood by reformed theologians, was a signless covenant for centuries. This particular comment is one that I desire to look more into and understand better. Answering this question will be crucial as I write my paper on infant baptism.
Overall, I am glad to have read this book, even if I disagreed with much of it. Van Dorn writes and builds arguments excellently, and when I have the time, I look forward to reading more of his books.