Credo-Baptism: The Continuity of Baptism Argument

Unlike the last three arguments for credo-baptism which require a discontinuity in redemptive history, this one requires continuity between the Old and New Testaments to work—making it mutually exclusive with them. As a consequence, this is by far the least popular argument used during debates, and one rarely encountered in online forums. The best treatment comes from a book by Doug Van Dorn entitled “Waters of Creation” and I fully admit my summary here will not be nearly as comprehensive or compelling as his full length treatise. Nevertheless, a map doesn’t need to have all the contours of real life to be valid (if it did, it would simply be real life and would cease to be a map), so it’s okay if this post doesn’t delve as deeply as the original.

They key idea is that baptism is older, larger, and a more important idea than circumcision, and therefore has preeminence as the sign of the covenant. Baptism doesn’t replace circumcision as the sign of the covenant, Baptism remains the sign of the covenant, and even the advent of Christ doesn't change that. In the Old Testament there was baptism, therefore in the New Testament we should continue to do baptism following the principles laid down in the Old Testament.

Why did the saints baptize in the Old Testament? To make priests ready for service. As Van Dorn says: "The Christian rite flows out of the ordination ceremony of the priest, as we become Levitical priests of the new covenant, servants who are baptized into Christ. Thus, is it here—in BAPTISM, and not in circumcision—that NT baptism has its OT covenantal counterpart." Consider the wider evidence of Scripture:

• Adam was a priest, Eden his sanctuary, and Eden was enclosed by water (Gen 2:10-15).
• Noah was a priest and his sanctuary was surrounded by water. Noah was baptized by the waters of judgment (1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5) and saved through them. 
• The people of Israel were baptized into Moses when crossing the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:2) and saved by the waters.
• The tabernacle had a laver of brass that the priests washed with next to it. The Levites under the priestly covenant were washed before service (Ex 40:12). 
• The temple had a bronze sea next to it that the priests could wash/bathe in. 
• Naaman the Syrian commander was baptized in the Jordan, became a believer in God, and served Him in his native land (2 Kings 5:14). 
• The new temple imagery in Ezekiel has water pouring out of it for washing the nation. 
• Christ is our sanctuary, and we wash when we are included in Him to begin our service.

These pre-New Covenant meanings must be carried over into the New Testament since God is building on His revelation, not eliminating it. Indeed, the New Testament not only builds on the previously established revelation, it completes the picture of how we are now washed in the cleansing blood of Christ and made priests and servants to God. This is why the Apostles called themselves slaves of God, and why Peter says that we are a Chosen Priesthood. In the form of a syllogism it might go like this:

P1: In the Old Testament baptism was appointed to cleanse adult believers to make them fit for service to God.
P2: The concept of baptism is unchanged between the Old and New Testaments.
C: New Testament baptism cleanses adult believers and makes them fit for service to God.

Premise two is not only conceded by the paedo-baptist, but it’s a key premise in their theology, so there’s no problem with simply asserting it and moving on. Premise one is the one most likely to be attacked then, but it is buttressed by a strong consideration of the evidence of Scripture as shown above. The priests were required to wash and be made new before they could become fit to serve God, therefore Baptism is a priestly washing ceremony. This is why John the Baptist—a Levite and descendent of priests—was performing the ceremony of washing on the people who wanted to come near to God. Or as Van Dorn says, "Baptism has always been the symbol of a new creation, way before the advent of circumcision. This is why even the priest was baptized at the start of his earthly ministry. He was becoming a “new creation” of sorts. But it is nothing like the priestly ministry now given to believers, who do not serve before God in a man-made temple. Rather, we serve him with our whole lives wherever we go in anticipation of the day when God will make the temple-heavens and earth new and eternal."

In the end the argument is no more complex than this: baptism in the New Testament replaces baptism in the Old Testament. There’s no withholding baptism from infants because they were never entitled to it in the first place.

Having concluded the fourth major argument for credo-baptism, it’s now time to visit the two arguments for paedo-baptism.


Next: the Ontological Argument for Paedo-Baptism


(Return to the index)