Posted by deangonzales on July 15, 2010
Should we allow minors into the membership of the church? Most evangelical churches would, without hesitation, answer this question affirmatively. Those that practice infant baptism believe the Bible warrants the inclusion of the children of believers into the membership of the church de jure. On the other hand, many Baptist churches today pressure young children to “make a decision for Christ” and accept such decisions or professions of faith without careful reflection on credibility.
In response to these two common evangelical views, Reformed Baptists have rightly stressed the need for a profession of faith as a prerequisite for baptism and church membership (contra paedobaptism) and appropriately questioned the often superficial decisionalism that characterizes far too many Baptist churches (contra decisionalism). They have, I think rightly so, highlighted the need to be cautious about hastily accepting as genuine a child’s profession of faith in light of several factors. These include a child’s lack of intellectual maturity (1 Cor 13:11; 14:20; Heb 5:11-14; 11:24-26), a child’s tendency to be changeable in his/her opinions and commitments (Isa 3:4; Matt 11:16-17; Eph 4:13-14), and a child’s proneness to self-deception (Jer 17:9; Ps 58:3; Prov 1:1-4; Eph 4:13-14). It is also pointed out that Luke, in Acts, refers to adult males and females being added to the church but doesn’t explicitly refer to children (Acts 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:1-2; 17:4, 34). Accordingly, some Reformed Baptist churches are hesitant to baptize children and, in some cases, require an individual to reach adult status before he/she may become members of the church.
While I appreciate and share some of the concerns raised by Reformed Baptist pastors, I’m decidedly in favor of baptizing and bringing children in to the membership of the church on biblical grounds. To begin with, the Bible teaches that children can be converted and should be urged to believe the gospel (Matt 18:1-6; Matt 19:13-14; Mark 9:42; Luke 18:15-17; Eph 6:1-2). Most, I think, would concede this point. But the Bible says more. In his epistles to the church in Ephesus and to the church in Colossae, the apostle Paul likely contemplates children (i.e., minors) as church members.
For our purposes, we’ll focus primarily on the text in Ephesians. In 6:1, Paul exhorts children, “Obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (ESV). The phrase “in the Lord” may suggest that the child is to obey his parents in light of his saving union with Christ (see Rom 16:8, 13; 1 Cor 4:17; 7:22, 39; 15:58; Eph 2:21; 5:8; 6:10; Phil 3:1; 4:1; Col 3:18; 4:7; 1 Thess 3:8; Philemon 1:16; Rev 14:13). Some, however, demur, and argue that the phrase means nothing more than “for the Lord’s sake” or “because the Lord commands such submission.” But there are exegetical data in the larger context that suggest Paul was addressing children whom he assumed were in saving union with Christ and who were, in fact, members of the church in Ephesus.
First, it should be noted that 6:1-2 is tied grammatically to 5:21 which, in turn, is linked grammatically to 5:18. Paul’s argument goes something like this: he commands believers to yield themselves to the control of the Spirit rather than the control or influence of wine (5:18). This command is followed by participial clauses, which serve to explicate the command. In what ways should the Spirit’s influence manifest itself in our behavior? (1) by admonishing and teaching one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (5:19); (2) by giving thanks to God the Father (5:20); and (3) by “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ” (5:21). The Greek term translated “one another” can be all-inclusive, i.e., every believer is (in some sense) responsible to submit to every other believer. More likely, though, it’s referring to one subgroup submitting to another subgroup within the body. This is confirmed by the subsequent context wherein Paul exhorts subordinates within the body of Christ (i.e., wives, children, slaves) to submit to superiors within the body of Christ (i.e., husbands, parents, masters). In light of this, it appears that the “children” envisioned in 6:1-2 are, in fact, a subgroup of those who can and should be “filled with the Spirit” (5:18) and motivated by “the fear of Christ” (5:21). Such language can hardly be applied to unbelieving children who happen to be attending the corporate meetings of the church.
Second, it should be remembered that Paul has already identified the recipients of the epistolary directives as “the saints who are at Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (1:2; emphasis added). He is writing specifically to those who are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise” but are “are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:12, 19). So along with the “wives” and “slaves” who, as members, are called on to demonstrate their union and allegiance to Christ by submitting to their God-ordained authorities, we must include the “children” who, as members, are called to do the same.
Of course, we’re well aware that the semantic range of the Greek teknon, translated “children,” is broad enough to include any minor, including older children in the stage of adolescence. Accordingly, we acknowledge that the text does not specify the actual age of the children in view. They may, very likely, be older children. But they are, after all, children, not adults. Consequently, if our reading is correct, the position that limits baptism and church membership to adults is without biblical warrant and would seem to run counter to practice in the apostolic church. Of course, we may grant that there are potential dangers of bringing young children into the membership of the church: we could unwittingly diminish the significance of baptism, breed a spirit of presumption, and create a climate for religious formalism. Moreover, we should concede that the privileges and liabilities of church membership require a level of adult-like maturity that children may not yet possess (Prov 1:1-4; Isa. 3:4; Matt 11:16-17; 1 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:13-14; Heb 5:11-14; 11:24-26).
Even so, the likelihood that children were members of NT churches and the overlap between childhood and adulthood (i.e., adolescence) should caution us against making any hard-fast rule as to the exact age when a young person may be brought into church membership. Since there are some membership responsibilities that require an adult-like maturity (e.g.s., office-related functions, difficult church discipline cases, etc.), it’s probably best to grant children all the benefits and responsibilities of membership with the exception of office-bearing and voting privileges until the become adults.
But there are benefits to church membership concerning which we don’t want to deprive our children. While attending church as non-members does expose our children to various means of grace such as congregational singing, corporate prayer, the ministry of the word, and Christian fellowship, membership in the church provides converted children with further means of grace such as more formal pastoral care, greater accountability, opportunities to serve, and a deeper level of fellowship and belonging to the family of God.
In conclusion, then, the NT warrants the inclusion of minors into the membership of the church. The practice of restricting membership to adults, despite its good intentions, doesn’t conform to the rule of sola Scriptura. The eldership must exercise caution and discernment when assessing a child’s profession of faith. But we should not operate from the assumption that the NT limits baptism and church membership to adults. Moreover, we shouldn’t assume that minors are incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of membership (with the exceptions of voting on major decisions and holding office). Children not only may be converted but they may also become a valuable asset to the church as participatory members. Therefore, we should allow children into the membership of the church.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on September 25, 2008
But to as many as received him, He granted the legal warrant to become children of God, even to the ones who believe in His name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the decision of a husband, but of God (author’s translation).
Doctrine: The conferral of covenant sonship status under the New Covenant is limited no longer to the Jewish nation and is predicated no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus the Messiah.
Below I will offer three propositions to substantiate the doctrine articulated and close with an application to the question of infant baptism and New Covenant church membership.
1. The passage is not merely explaining the ordo salutis, that is, God’s way of salvation at all times, but is primarily highlighting a shift in the historia salutis, that is, God’s manner of administrating the paradigm of redemption (commonly called the Covenant of Grace) in history.
The reader should note that the primary theme of John 1:1-18 is the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among men. This is obviously a historical event and it marks a new epoch in the history of redemption. The apostle notes this epochal shift when he asserts, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” John’s reference to Moses alludes to a great event in redemptive history, viz, God redeeming His people from Egypt mediated through Moses and later revealed in the Law. That great redemptive event, however, would pale in comparison to the second great redemptive event. Indeed, the first great event was merely a shadow of the second great event. Now God would redeem His people from their sins by the hand of one greater than Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15ff.; Heb. 3:1-7). The Son of God would come and ratify a New Covenant with His own blood.
So what we have here are two mediators, two covenants, and two canons! The “law” is the OT canon completed. “Grace and truth,” refer to a New Covenant canon, not yet completed but anticipated and presupposed. Moreover, John’s purpose in this passage is to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant and its mediator. The Old Covenant contained grace and truth (Exod. 34:4-7). That grace and truth, however, was promissory in form. God’s people could not look directly at His glory, but they could only see it as it was reflected from Moses’ face. Even then there was a veil over his face, because God’s people were not ready for the full revelation of God’s glory (34:29-35).
But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, the Word. Now the veil will be taken away from the Law of Moses. Now God’s people are ready to see God’s glory in all of its fullness. Note verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now grace and truth are no longer in the promissory form of the OT. Now they’re in the fulfillment form of the incarnate Son of God—the Mediator of a better covenant. Instead of sending Moses down from the mountain in order to reflect His glorious grace and truth, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, has come down from the mountain. Note the declaration of verse 18: “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [i.e., revealed] Him.” Jesus Christ Himself is the New Covenant word from God.
What, therefore, verses 10-12 describe are human responses to this redemptive-historical event. “The world did not know Him” (v. 10), “his own people did not receive him” (v. 11), and “but as many as received Him” (v. 12) refer primarily those historical human responses that have followed in the wake of this new and greatest of all redemptive events–God become flesh in the person of Christ. Thus, verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God’s way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God’s work of grace in Abraham, Moses, and David) but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant. Now what once characterized only a remnant within God’s Old Covenant family will now be the rule characterizing the members of the New Covenant family. Unfortunately, as William Hendricksen notes, “The Jew was very slow to learn that in the new dispensation there are no special privileges based upon physical relationships” [emphasis added] (Exposition of the Gospel According to John [Baker, 1953], 1:81). Therefore, when a Paedobaptist asserts that John’s teaching in 1:12-13 “was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new” he betrays an insensitivity to the clear redemptive-historical emphasis of John’s doctrine.
2. The passage is not merely referring to the divine causation of a moral change in individuals, that is, regeneration, but is primarily highlighting a divine conferral of legal covenantal status, that is, adoption.
The rendering of the Authorized Version, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God,” has suggested to some that vv. 12-13 are dealing exclusively with regeneration. The Greek term translated “power,” however, is exousia, not dunamis. The later would connote revivification and be consonant with the grace of regeneration. The former denotes legal authority and/or privilege. This is noted by Leon Morris who writes, “John does not speak of power, as in the sense of power of sin (though in fact they receive that too). His thought is that of status. They have received full authority to this exalted title. He does not say ‘to be’ but ‘to become.’ Not only is there a status, but there is a change of status” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1971], 98). Albert Barnes argues similarly and prefers to translate exousia as “privilege.” He then identifies this privilege as the legal status of adoption (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament [Kregel, 1962], 265). Barnes is not without support from other commentators. John Calvin uses the term “adoption” at least four times in his exposition of verses 12 and 13 (see Calvin’s NT Commentaries [Eerdmans, 1993], 4:16-19). Professor John Murray lists John 1:12-13 among “the most important passages in the New Testament bearing upon adoption” (Collected Works [Banner of Truth, 1977], 2:226). He argues,
In John 1:12 he speaks of giving authority to become sons of God. Sonship, he indicates, is instituted by the bestowment of a right and this is to be distinguished from the regeneration spoken of in verse 13. When we apply John’s own teaching elsewhere to this passage we are compelled to discover the following progression of logical and causal relationship–regeneration (v. 13), the reception of Christ, the bestowment of authority, and becoming thereby children of God (v. 12)…. In a word, the representation of Scripture is to the effect that by regeneration we become members of God’s kingdom, by adoption we become members of God’s family (CW, 2:228-229).
One should note how Murray connects the blessing of adoption with membership in God’s covenant family. Robert Peterson builds on Murray’s insights and remarks,
Adoption and regeneration are two ways of describing how we enter the family of God…. In regeneration, [God] begets his children, giving new life to those who were spiritual dead. In adoption, the Father places adult sons and daughters, former children of the devil, in his family. Adoption is a legal action, taking place outside of us, whereby God the Father gives us a new status in his family (Adopted by God [P&R, 2001], 105).
So the grace bestowed in verse 12 is “adoption” in contrast with the grace effected in verse 13, which is “regeneration” (see also J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Zondervan, 1957], 3:16-17). Of course, as the writers above note, John ties both salvific blessings together. This new covenant family status is conferred on believers (v. 12) whose very faith is itself the fruit or evidence of a supernatural work of God’s regenerating grace (v. 13). Thus, this newly conferred covenant status is not the product of human merit but of divine bestowal.
Nevertheless, since verse 13 stands grammatically in subordination to verse 12, the emphasis is not so much upon God’s inward work of regeneration but rather upon God’s subsequent conferral of legal status upon regenerate believers. And if John is not merely alluding to the ordo salutis but rather to a new stage in redemptive history, then his emphasis on a circumcised heart expressed by faith in Christ as the condition for the divine conferral of a new covenant-familial status suggests a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God, with the most of whom God was not well-pleased (1 Cor. 10:1-5), and the New Covenant people of God, who, as a rule, are truly “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,” marked by the fact that God has not merely called them out of Egypt to Canaan but “out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).
3. The passage predicates the divine conferral of a legal covenantal status no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ.
If, as argued above, John’s focus is not merely on the ordo salutis but primarily on the historia salutis, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham’s “seed” and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4).
This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey his grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). But now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34). To use the language of John, “To as many as received” the Son of God incarnate (v. 12). Hence, natural descent, the pride of the Jewish people, no longer counts. As Calvin observes,
The universal term ‘as many’ implies an antithesis: the Jews were carried away by a blind glorying, as if God were restricted to them alone. So the Evangelist declares that their lot has changed; the Gentiles have succeeded to the place left empty by the disinherited Jews. It is just as if he transferred the rights of adoption to strangers (Calvin, 4:16-17).
So the legal right of entrance into the covenant family of God is no longer predicated on physical descent or outward circumcision. Instead, “‘Whosoever’ received Him,” notes Ryle, whether “Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God” (3:22). Hence, with the coming of Christ, God has reconstituted his covenant household. He has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within his “covenant household” (see Eph. 2:19) is predicated on faith and the new birth, no longer on natural descent.
What are the implications for the New Covenant rite of baptism and church membership status?
According to one Paedobaptist pastor,
The passage teaches nothing concerning ‘baptism,’ the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.
I agree that “the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe” and that “Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.” I would also concede that John does not directly refer to water baptism (which would be a bit premature at this stage in his Gospel presentation). Nevertheless, I’m inclined to think, in light of my exposition above, that this passage does carry implications regarding the recipients of baptism and membership in New Covenant churches. Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the ordo salutis was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the “people of God.” Under the New Covenant, however, God’s redemptive program has advanced. Now the historia salutis and ordo salutis will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton.) To achieve this result, God demands faith in Messiah as the warrant for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Natural descent and outward circumcision served their typical purposes under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. But blood-ties to Abraham and removed foreskins failed to effect the kind of changes in the covenant community God ultimately desired. Therefore,
Finding fault with His people, He says: “Look, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah–not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Because they did not continue in My covenant, I disregarded them,” says the Lord. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the Lord: “I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their wrongdoing, and I will never again remember their sins.” By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear [emphasis added] (Heb. 8:8-13, CSB).
In keeping with the redemptive-historical shift portended by the prophet Jeremiah, highlighted by the author of Hebrews, and reinforced by the teaching of John 1:12-13, I would argue that those who have divinely conferred legal warrant to enter into God’s newly constituted covenant family are those who give evidence of the new birth though a credible profession of faith in Jesus the Messiah. The fact that unregenerate men and women are sometimes baptized and brought into the New Covenant community on profession of faith that later turns out to be false does not contradict or invalidate the Credobaptist argument. Even the Paedobaptist predicates adult baptism on a credible profession of faith. Hence, “the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room,” as one Paedobaptist brother put it, is in his living room too. The question is one of divinely bestowed legal warrant (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God’s New Covenant family is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper. It is, rather, a new state of affairs from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, the church and her leadership is no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant de jure the privilege of New Covenant member status.
In closing, I acknowledge that some of my Paedobaptist brothers may affirm most of what I have said and acknowledge its validity as a general rule. They will, however, quickly remind me of a handful of New Testament passages that, in their minds, provide biblical warrant for an exception to the rule. They will point to Jesus’ receptive disposition toward children (Acts 18:1-10; Mark 10:14-16), Acts 2:38-39; household baptisms (Acts 16:15; 31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16), and the children made “holy” text (1 Cor. 7:14). But these passages are hardly conclusive and undisputed. It should also be noted in that in all the NT polemic against the Judaizers’ attempt to foist the continuing demand of outward circumcision upon the New Covenant community never once do the apostles settle the confusion with the simple observation that circumcision has been superseded by baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 does not replace outward circumcision with water baptism. Rather, it replaces outward circumcision with inward circumcision (Phil. 3:3), i.e., regeneration, which in turn is evidence by faith (John 1:12-13) and symbolized in water baptism (Col. 2:12). So, with all due respect and appreciation for my Paedobaptist brothers, I do not believe the Credobaptists argues in a “void.” Moreover, though our great esteem for our Reformed Paedobaptist forefathers has even constrained some of us to attempt to swallow infant baptism, yet until we find clear Scriptural warrant for the practice, we dare not violate our conscience and add to God’s word. Without trying to be melodramatic, we might borrow Luther’s famous words,
Unless we are convicted by Scripture and plain reason … our conscience is captive to the Word of God…. to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here we stand, we cannot do otherwise. God help us, Amen.
Should we allow minors into the membership of the church? Most evangelical churches would, without hesitation, answer this question affirmatively. Those that practice infant baptism believe the Bible warrants the inclusion of the children of believers into the membership of the church de jure. On the other hand, many Baptist churches today pressure young children to “make a decision for Christ” and accept such decisions or professions of faith without careful reflection on credibility.
