The Covenantal Reformed View (Opening Statement)

Below is a transcript of the opening statement of Gregg Strawbridge's Covenantal Reformed view in the discussion on baptism occurring on Marlon Wilson's YouTube Channel "The Gospel Truth" on June 24th, 2021. Everything quoted herein is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate transcription of what was said during the discussion sans some unnecessary interjections like pause fillers, discourse particles, stutters/false starts, etc. Points of information will be bracketed and any commentary will be indented and italicized like this paragraph. For a video of the entire discussion, please click here.

So, I’m representing what I would call the Covenantal Reformed view of baptism and I would say that this view is the Protestant, general Protestant, view. I think that “Reformed” has to do with reformation of the Catholic Church so I don't see myself as a sectarian, I see myself as someone who is in the stream of trying to reform the church. Basically, you know, the people that this addresses, people like Luther and Zwingli and Calvin and so forth. But, of course, as you work through baptism issues and more detailed things you come to different points of view, so my confessional statements would be things like the Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Westminster Confession; those things represent my view. Men like Calvin and Francis Turatin, John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Cornelius Van Til, John Murray; those represent the basic view that I have. There's been a few books on my view in the last few years. You might consider Randy Booth's book “Children of Promise,” Doug Wilson’s book “To A Thousand Generations,” Peter Lightheart's book called “The Baptized Body,” and then I edited a book called “The Case for Covenant Communion,” so all those would represent this Covenantal Reformed view.

Let me just address it from the Bible in terms of what these kinds of actions are. So, baptism is a rite, meaning r-i-t-e, a rite, an event that we do, and we have a number of these things in the Bible. So, for example we have sacrificial rites, we have communion, which is a rite, we have in the Old Testament many other things including circumcision. So, I don't want to lay all the weight on circumcision like many Presbyterians do but I think it's helpful to understand that in the description of circumcision in Romans 4:11 we actually have a very full passage on the nature of such things as baptism. So, Paul says, for example, he uses language of sign and seal that's also used in in all those Reformed confessions that I’ve referred to, and in 4:11 in Romans it says, speaking of Abraham, that he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith while he had––while uncircumcised so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised. So, the action of circumcision (Genesis 17, if you want to look that up) is an effective sign. So, effective meaning it does something, it's an effective visible sign. You can see it, it's something that you can refer to. And that's it's also said there in in that passage a seal, the Greek word for that is sphragis and that is used of wax seals, it's used of marks like tattoos on a slave, it's used of brandings on an animal; it's an identifying mark. So, if you put that together, circumcision was an effective sign that sealed a truth that we would say is manifestly spiritual such as faith––the righteousness of faith, says Paul. Well this passage, I would just lay out one argument, again I could probably go from every baptismal passage in the New Testament but here's an example of how I think you can address the Reformed conviction, and so we see three important foundations from this passage.

Regarding circumcision, I have little in the way of disagreement. Circumcision was an effective sign that, although it was physical, accomplished metaphysical results. I look forward to see how he argues the connection between this and baptism since he expressed above that Rom 4:11 would help elucidate the aquatic act.

So, first of all, for Covenant Theological views on the sacraments, number one: there is a continuity between the covenantal actions of the Old Testament with New Testament signs. That is, baptism and communion are related to the previous things that came before such as circumcision, Passover, the sacrificial system in general. And this point is strengthened if you look at Colossians 2:11, “in him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised up with him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.” It's hard to ignore that Paul is drawing some kind of parallel between circumcision and baptism there. We could talk more specifically if somebody wants to ask questions about that passage.

That there is a continuity between Old and New Testament signs or rites is quite apparent and one will find no disagreement from me here. The relevant question, though, is: to what extent is this continuity? To this, Gregg has yet to offer any sort of argument or even detailed explanation of what he believes this relationship is, although I could speculate on the implications he is trying to draw out. For now, however, I will merely concede his point that there are some parallels between baptism and circumcision and leave the extent to be commented on later.

Secondly, circumcision is called a seal of the righteousness of faith and yet it was properly applied to male children and adults. A sign of faith does require a credible profession in the case of adults, it doesn't require it in the case of children and that's very obvious in circumcision, so therefore the inclusion of children are implicated very strongly in this parallel. A sign of faith could be applied to children as is plain in this case of circumcision. The baptism that happened in the Red Sea––1 Corinthians 10:1–10 Paul calls crossing the Red Sea a baptism, Passover indeed in, in the whole sacrificial system. And so here's a point that Reformers have made: Calvin says, “for what will they bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision.” What he's saying is all the basic objections to inclusion of children––young underage children––in baptism really go back to “what are you going to say about circumcision?” and so I think probably many Baptist strategies are to say, “well but in the Old Testament it was very physical and not spiritual,” but then here you have Paul saying the circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith so you can't live with that I don't think.

Here Dr. Strawbridge draws out his implication that I believe he was beginning to expound on in his previous paragraph (i.e., that the parallels between baptism and circumcision include their application to infants). He indirectly calls back to Rom 4:11 but, in my opinion, fails to adequately demonstrate its relevance to the totality of circumcision recipients. Notice the order of events here: 1) Abraham exhibits faith, 2) that faith is credited to him as righteousness, 3) he receives circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith while uncircumcised. Can it then be extrapolated that the circumcision of an infant is a seal of his righteousness by faith when he is not yet old enough to exhibit any sort of faith? In other words, Rom 4:11 does not seem to be speaking to the whole of circumcision recipients about what the normal process for circumcision is, but rather depicting a specific example relevant to the point Paul is making and what circumcision represented therein. This is not to say that circumcision might not eventually become a seal of righteousness for the majority of its recipients, or that it might not symbolically represent, say, the faith of the nation of Israel, but surely Dr. Strawbridge would not agree that these infants were receiving circumcision as a seal of righteousness they had already attained because of faith they already had.

The quote from Calvin here further expresses the point that Gregg has yet to demonstrate: what is the extent to which baptism and circumcision can be said to be related? Obviously they are not, by definition, a 1-to-1 likeness. In essence, the differences are patent and only worth mentioning here for rhetorical value: one is the removal of foreskin, one is immersion into water. But in practice, their uniqueness is presupposed; otherwise, baptism would be, for example, administered only to males or applied only on the eighth day to covenant family infants. Where/how does Gregg/Calvin draw the line regarding their practical differences?

Regarding the last statement of Gregg’s previous paragraph, just because something is a seal of a spiritual truth does not mean it confers some type of spiritual benefit. Circumcision could very well be a “seal of the righteousness in faith” and be “very physical and not spiritual”; they are not mutually exclusive. I think the credobaptist can very easily maintain that circumcision is a seal of a spiritual event without actually believing the circumcision itself contains any spiritual elements and thus be able to draw the distinction Gregg is attempting to refute.

Three, the essence of the covenant sign of baptism is very well illustrated here. First, on the one hand, circumcision cannot be a bare symbol that does nothing but only pictures some deeper spiritual thingy. So, for example, my Baptist brethren and many in the low church world would say it's just a mere symbol––the “Baptist Faith and Message” I think says something like “it's a symbol, it represents this, there's no activity, nothing happens in baptism,” and I’ve heard many, even Presbyterians, doing it for baptism, and the major point that they're making in doing the baptism is: “that didn't just happen,” you know, “nothing happened.” Well no, I’d say something happens.

Alright, so, that's one side of it. If you compare it with circumcision, clearly the Jews thought that circumcision did something and made the person in a different state, a different relationship to Israel, obviously.

Dr. Strawbridge offers nothing of substance here. He argues that circumcision “cannot” be a bare symbol but provides no reason to believe this is the case. As I’ve suggested above, interpreting circumcision as a “bare symbol” from this Romans passage (i.e., the only passage brought up as evidence thus far to discuss circumcision proper) does not seem difficult and very well might be the prima facie reading. Perhaps the Jews did suppose circumcision to put a person in a different state or relationship to Israel (I say perhaps because I’m unaware precisely what he means by this), but this cannot be gleaned from anything Gregg has put forward thus far.

On the other hand, who could claim that the scalpel or the knife is magic? I’m saying this kind of against Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, like there's some kind of magical water or something. Is there any person who believes that the essence of circumcision had anything to do with the cutting instrument or the foreskin having some kind of magical substance? No. Does anyone suppose that the Passover lamb meat was transformed into some completely different substance? (I’m saying this basically against the Roman Catholic point of view). Did anyone think that the Red Sea, which is an archetype of baptism, was running with some kind of magical water when they crossed it? Of course not. Did the Jordan have some kind of other substance than normal water? No. These are ritual events that God sanctions and provides blessing for.

I’ll ignore the rhetorically charged uses of “magic” for now and focus on the underlying claim Gregg makes here. In his continued assumption of perfect sacramental continuity, he makes a series of egregious misrepresentations of Catholic and Orthodox views on those sacraments (and I’m a Protestant) that, again, fall short of making any real progress on demonstrating his view. Neither circumcision nor the crossing of the Red Sea are ever said to effect the forgiveness of sins or renewal of the self, while baptism does seem directly associated with these benefits and, to play Devil’s advocate, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist has at least some argumentative weight while that of the Passover lamb has none. In other words, the reasons why some characteristics get applied to certain New Testament rites while others get applied to certain Old Testament rites is not creative imagination but an examination of the characteristics as fleshed out by Scripture rather than an immutable presupposition of continuity.

That's essentially the reformed view: it does something, but it doesn't do something because of a magical transformation of the substance. There's a ritual aspect; you do it, there's a sequence, but it does not depend upon the substance itself. And so, there is a continuity that you can see between covenant signs and that continuity extends to covenant households from the Old Testament to the New Testament. I would say there is just absolutely no basis for thinking there's a radical change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. So my Dispensational friend here on the panel: there is no radical change. How do we know that? Well okay, let's go through it. I’ll try to be really brief about this, I only have a minute or two left.

Again, I really don’t think this continuity is as plain as Gregg claims and, if I were only to take the evidence presented herein, I would see virtually no case for the continuity of these rites other than, perhaps, simplicity. Instead, I would argue that there are immense changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament (though I admit this is relative to what exactly is being compared). I’ve already presented a small number of examples above of the differences between baptism and circumcision, but I’d be happy to present a case for specific OT/NT distinctions if it ends up being relevant.

If you look at the entire sequence of baptisms in the New Testament, there are nine individuals that are named. So, these are pericopes that address baptism. Of the nine individuals, six are household cases. Now, think about that. Is this a radical change from the administration of signs of faith to the household of six of nine? You say, “well but maybe the other three.” Well two of the other three don't have households (that would be Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch). Now why weren't the Ethiopian eunuch’s children baptized? Of course *laughs*. And then the other is Simon the Sorcerer. It's a very weird story about how he tried to buy the power of the Holy Spirit with money. So six of nine cases; I can deal with all the objections to any of those cases. Two of them are inferential for sure, but I’d say at least four are stated directly. The fifth one, Crispus, it says his household believed, so even a Baptist should accept that. And then Gaius, which is a little more inferential, but I think that case can be made pretty strongly that he was baptized.

Although he is directing this bit towards the Dispensationalist of the group, he makes claims that are very germane to my position so I’d like to address them before wrapping up. First is his claim that only nine individuals are named as baptismal recipients. Interesting here is the point that I poorly articulated in my cross-examination period that James White articulated much more clearly in his debate with Dr. Strawbridge: why limit this to 9? The book of Acts alone mentions multiple thousands of baptismal recipients. Why is his focus narrowed to the 9 individual cases if not to augment his case for infant baptism? That’s dangerously close to cherry-picking and he ought to present this evidence more transparently if he wants it to be in a form that is more defensible.

That being said, I really don’t think it is that defensible. He again argues from continuity that, since a Jewish proselyte would have had his/her whole household that included infant children converted to Judaism then a Christian proselyte must therefore have had his/her entire household including infant children converted to Christianity. Two points make this direct relationship unlikely:

1) Baptism seems to include a prior confession of faith in its earliest depictions.

2) The household examples mentioned almost all include explicit or implicit expressions of faith by the entire household, thereby excluding infants in these cases.

Both of these I lay out a general case for in my opening statement so I will forego fleshing them out here. The position that either general household baptisms included infants or that these specific household baptisms included infants ought not be maintained given the current evidential weighing.

Regarding objections to those cases, I will make an edit to this response if an opportunity does not present it self in a later commentary to offer my objections.

So, therefore, all you see in the New Testament with regard to baptism is that the Bible has a continuity between Old Testament and New Testament and that it is a sign and seal of faith. Thank you.

First let me say that I love Gregg and do appreciate that he sees baptism as effective in some sense, even if it’s not the sense in which I see it. He has definitely done a lot of research––especially historical––on the topic and that shows in his presentation. However, I find many shortcomings in his opening statement that I’d like to briefly address now that we’ve reached the end.

One aspect I find particularly interesting is that he remarks early on that he doesn’t want to “lay all the weight on circumcision,” but then proceeds to lay out a case almost totally upheld by circumcision’s connection with baptism. He cites Rom 4:11 and Col 2:11 and structures virtually his entire argument on these two passages, especially the former. What he doesn’t base on those two passages, he upholds with general theological frameworks on the continuity of Old Testament and New Testament rites, which would be acceptable had he provided any real argument for such a framework. My critique is not even that Gregg’s argumentation is lacking, but rather that it is virtually nonexistent in his opening statement. There is nothing about this opening statement that compels me to view baptism in the traditional Presbyterian way unless I already presuppose baptism and circumcision to be parallels.

Another major flaw with his opening appears to be Gregg’s conflation of something being a seal of a spiritual truth with it actually having a spiritual component. The route that Strawbridge ought to have gone here was using entrance into a covenant relationship with God as the non-physical event that coincides with the physical event and then argued from there, as it would have given me more to contend with. In his defense, this does seem to be Dr. Strawbridge’s actual view, but it never seemed clearly communicated to me.

Overall, Gregg did an acceptable job of presenting what the Presbyterian view was but gave me no reason to think it was true myself or to even know why he thought it was true. For this, I will likely have to peruse his own writings, which I’m sure I will do with time. But, for the purposes of the discussion, I do not believe that Gregg presented a robust view of baptism in his opening statement and will have to remain in my belief that baptism is normatively essential for salvation and that it ought to only be administered to those who are able to express belief in Jesus as the Christ.