Amillennialism or Postmillennialism? What books to read and which view is correct?

This week, a member asked me to recommend books on Amillennialism and Postmillennialism. Before doing so, let me clarify what we’re talking about. Amillennialism and Postmillennialism are two different views related to how Christians interpret Revelation 20 in particular, as well as the Bible's wider teachings about the end times and the kingdom of God.

Amillennialism:

• They believe the kingdom of God is already present in the world but in a spiritual sense. This means that when Jesus came to earth, he established his kingdom, and it continues through the church today.

• Sees the “millennium” mentioned in Revelation as a symbolic period that represents the current church age, where Christ reigns in the hearts of believers by his Spirit.

• Does not insist that prior to Christ’s return and final judgment, there will be a prolonged “golden age,” wherein the majority of the world is Christianized.

Postmillennialism:

• They believe that before Jesus returns, the world will increasingly become more Christian and more righteous through the spread of the gospel and the influence of the church.

• They expect a “golden age” or a long period of peace and prosperity where Christian values dominate society. This period is often associated with the "millennium" of Revelation 20.

In summary, the basic difference is that Amillennialists see Christ's kingdom as already here in a spiritual sense and does not insist on a future golden age before Jesus returns, while Postmillennialists believe the world will gradually improve and experience a long period of Christian dominance before Jesus comes back.

Recommended reading

Specifically on this subject:

Amillennial perspective — A Case for Amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (URC pastor). 

Postmillennial perspective — Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith A. Mathison.

Commentaries on the Book of Revelation as a whole:

Triumph of the Lamb by Dennis Johnson. It’s easy and edifying read, and a fair introduction to the book of Revelation.

A Shorter Commentary on Revelation by G.K. Beale. At more than 500 pages, it makes you wonder how much longer his original book was. But it succeeds in adding depth and nuance to one’s understanding of a challenging portion of Scripture.

Now, for my opinions…

If there is one lesson I have learned over many years of studying this subject, it is that no one can agree on how many n’s there are in millennialism (this Crosswalk article uses both versions to be safe). For our purposes, I’m on Team Two-N’s.

More seriously, I’ll begin by stating my pastoral conviction that the issue of amillennialism-versus-postmillennialism is not one which should divide congregations. Notably, our Three Forms of Unity do not explicitly endorse either position (though their reticence on this matter is typically understood to reflect amillennial leanings). The fact is, both sides long to serve Christ and eventually to behold him reigning visibly in glory.

That being said, my honest opinion is that postmillennialism is an error (not heresy) which arises from deficient hermeneutics coupled with misplaced expectations about God's plan for the church prior to Christ's return. If that judgment sounds harsh, my intention is to “speak the truth in love.” Nor am I alone in this estimation. The majority of Reformed and Presbyterian Christians, both past and present, have tended to hold an amillennial view of eschatology. In the United Reformed Churches, where I serve, nearly all pastors are amillennial—perhaps 95% of us. Of course, majorities aren’t always right; but when there is a strong consensus, especially among brothers with whom we otherwise tend to agree, it should make us pause to humbly consider how they reached their conclusion.

To be fair, postmillennialism once enjoyed wider acceptance than it does today. The 19th century is considered the heyday of the view. Its popularity during that period was bolstered by the global missionary movement, coupled with Western imperialism and, leading to apparent growth in Christianization and Westernization of areas formerly closed to the gospel. Two world wars and the rapid increase of secularization, however, contributed to a decline in adherence. Simply put, it grew harder to look at the world and say, “we’re almost there.” Yet even at its zenith, postmillennialism remained a minority view.

Lately, there has been a resurgence of interest in postmillennialism in some circles. I see it growing fastest among people with Baptist or Dispensational backgrounds. Some aspects of this belief are understandably attractive. For instance, if we grant that a seismic social transformation must occur prior to Jesus’ return, this might encourage Christians to take a more active role in shaping society according to biblical principles. This outlook resonates with those who believe we must engaging in politics, education, and cultural issues to bring about change. To be fair, Christians of every stripe ought to do all these things, simply because God commands us to love our neighbors in his name. But to postmillennial believers, it might be easier to see how our efforts contribute to the end goal of Christ’s glorious return.

On the other side, postmillennialists sometimes accuse their amillennial brethren of being pessimistic or complacent about Christ's kingdom. I would never describe my view as “pessimistic.” To the contrary, amillennialism affirms our faith that God’s kingdom will succeed according to plan. The difference is that we believe God’s plan involves two stages:

Stage 1 — Christ gathers the spiritual citizens of his heavenly kingdom to faith. He does so by means of his Spirit working through the evangelistic activities of the church. Meanwhile, Christ “binds” Satan from altogether thwarting our missionary task.

Stage 2 — Christ will consummate his kingdom visibly at his glorious return. At that time, he will judge the world, expel all enemies, and bestow the new creation upon his co-heirs. 

Now, let’s build on this summary.

We are now in the first stage of Christ’s kingdom, which began at his incarnation by the Spirit in Mary’s womb. Hence the wise men asked, “Where is he who is born king?” In Luke 11:20, Jesus stated clearly that his reign has already begun:

"If I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the Kingdom of God has come near to you."

In other words, because Jesus had cast out demons, there should be no doubt about the inauguration of his kingdom having taken place. In that passage, Jesus compared his power over Satan to "bings the strong man and plundering his goods". Doubtless, the Lord’s depiction of himself “binding” the devil to rescue the elect has bearing on John’s vision in Revelation 20. There we behold Satan "bound" for a "thousand years." It seems sensible to interpret this later passage in light of Jesus’ earlier statements. For that reason, most Reformed Christians understand the “millenium” to refer symbolically to a lengthy period of time during which Christ prevents the devil from thwarting the church in her missionary task. The Greek phrase translated "1000 years" is best understood as a hyperbolic idiom, meaning that it emphasizes extent without specifying an exact length. It is similar, I suppose, to how one might say that a Lamborghini costs "a bajillion bucks." The idiom emphasizes vastness without necessarily intending a precise amount.

“Thy Kingdom is Come”

Presently, Christ exercising his kingly authority by sending his Spirit to gather spiritual citizens of the heavenly kingdom. He does so by converting the elect to faith, thereby delivering them from Satan’s domain. This is reflected in Colossains 1, when Paul declares that,

"[God] has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son, who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins."

Here, Christ’s redemptive kingdom is shown to exist in parallel with Satan’s sinful dominion over the world. Similarly, until Christ’s return, the kingdom of heaven exists alongside earthly civil governments and kingdoms. When Pilate asked Jesus whether he claimed civil authority, the Lord replied,

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

In this way, he indicated that his redemptive government is not exercised by means of temporal laws and power, but from within, by the Spirit. Compare Luke’s Gospel, which reads,

"Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, and He answered, “The Kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the Kingdom of God is among/within you” (Luke 17:20-21, NRSV). 

Our newfound spiritual freedom enables us to submit to Jesus willingly in all things, as we “keep in step with the Spirit.” Paul emphasizes this aspect of the kingdom in Romans 14:17-22:

"the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men." 

“Thy Kingdom shall Come”

So, how does the kingdom conclude? When Christ returns bodily, the second and final stage of his kingdom will commence. He will "cause every knee to bow, and every tongue to confess that Jesus is Lord" (Phil 2:10-11). His enemies will be "cast out of the kingdom." Those who are united with Christ, however, will inherit all things. Thus will Habakkuk's words be fully realized: "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (2:14).

Can I recommend a translation besides the ESV? Yes!

A member wrote to me,

I have just started reading How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth. The book says that one of the best tools for studying the Bible is having several good translations. So I was wondering if you could provide me with a list of other good translations of the Bible besides the ESV.

Before recommending other Bible translations, let me share a bit of why you might want to use others as well as some important differences among them.

There are basically two ways of translating texts from one language into another. The first method, called "formal equivalence," attempts to represent the original text by rendering it word-for-word. While a noble goal, it sometimes leads to clunkiness or confusion, especially when relating cultural idioms. For instance, Exodus 32:10 literally says the Lord's “nose burned” against Israel. Surely, that meant something to ancient Hebrew people. But it may not not obvious to most modern Americans. Hint: it means God became angry.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have a method called "dynamic equivalence." This is where translators focus on communicating in the clearest way possible (what they think is) the author's meaning, even if that means a bit of paraphrasing or re-ordering some phrases. So, rather than saying, "the Lord's nose grew hot," they would just say, "the Lord became angry." Often, these paraphrases are helpful. But they can also obscure the instances where multiple interpretations are possible. The more dynamic the translation, the less the freedom the reader has to interpret the text.

To be clear, all translations of the Bible make use of both methods. We're really talking about which method one leans towards. 

My opinion is that the current gold standard for formal equivalence is the ESV. Others include the KJV/NKJV and Holman. An even more strict expression of formal equivalence is the NASB. Not an "easy reader" but it can yield some insights. On the other side, dynamic equivalence translations include the NIV, NLT, and, notoriously, the Message Bible. I don't recommend that last one except as fire kindling. 

Some translations try hard to be in the middle. For instance, the CSB. I'm not too familiar with it, but have appreciated it now and then. I think the Berean is also in that camp. I’ve benefited from it, too.

In general, I'd recommend having your main study Bible based on formal equivalence. Then use a dynamic equivalence translation for comparison, or when you want help understanding a text. Or just to freshen things up.

If I could only have three Bibles, I'd say:

1.) ESV

2.) NLT / NIV

3.) NASB 

Thankfully, I'm not so limited. When I want to compare translations, I often plug a verse into the free Bible Hub website and scroll through the list it generates.

The Lord bless your studies.

A Beginner's Guide to Reading the Bible

The Bible is a big book. Or rather, sixty-six books.

“Where do I even begin with the reading the Bible? It’s huge.”

This is a question I receive often. Probably because people instinctively pick up the Bible and try to read it cover to cover, only to discover parts that feel like crossing the Sahara on foot (though I promise there are plenty of oases, you just have to know where to look!).

I recommend first to become very familiar with a few key books. These will help "unlock" the others since they either form the backdrop of the whole Bible or are quoted extensively by other Biblical authors.

Key Old Testament Books

• Genesis

• Exodus

• Deuteronomy

• Psalms

• Proverbs

• Isaiah

Key New Testament Books

• John

• Acts

• Romans

• Ephesians

• 1 John

A simple method:

Don’t just plow through the Old Testament. Go back and forth between OT and NT books. The one exception being Psalms and Proverbs, which should be read daily or at least weekly.

Next, whatever book you're in (e.g., Romans), read it start-to-finish not once, but 3-4 times before moving on to the next book. It’s okay if it takes you a month or two to complete this. Re-reading books in their entirety helps cement core ideas and causes you to notice things you might have overlooked on the first pass. And here’s a Hot Tip™, try using an audio Bible like the free Crossway ESV app. Did you know the book of Romans is an hour long? No big deal!

As you go, write down any questions (and passages) that come to mind for researching later. But don't let your questions halt your reading.

Later, review your list of questions and highlight any whichever stand out the most.

Now, pick up a commentary and see what it says for those specific passages. John Calvin's commentary (or any of the ones in the church library) is a good place to start.

Don’t Skip Systematic Theology

Bible interpretation is much easier when you have a grasp on the basic system of doctrine. I strongly recommend reading the Belgic Confession very carefully, followed by the Catechism. Both are on threeforms.org as well as in our Trinity Psalter Hymnal and Forms & Prayers book.

Can demons appear in human form like angels?

This is an interesting question but it may not have a definite answer.

You might recall that when Jesus cast a legion of demons out of the Gadarene man, they pleaded to enter pigs (Mk 5). Some have taken this to imply that demons are unable to assume corporeal forms of their own and are therefore restless to inhabit the bodies of other creatures. Certain scholars have even argued that God's curse on the fallen angels includes taking away their to manifest bodily, in the way good angels do throughout the Bible. I must admit, however, I don't know of any clear Scripture which confirms that theory. Moreover, if the demons were so anxious to escape their disembodied state, why did they immediately drive the pigs off a cliff? I think the legion might simply have been overcome with an insatiably desire to possess and harm God’s creatures, regardless of their ability to manifest corporeally.

Elsewhere, Paul warns the Galatians not to receive any false "gospel" even if it is presented by an angel. Since no good angel would spread a false gospel, it seems like demons can literally pose as angels of light. But Paul might simply be exaggerating for effect. Something like exclaiming today to the guards as Buckingham Palace, “even if King Arthur comes to you, don’t open these gates!” It doesn’t have to be based on a real possibility to stress the importance of one’s duty.

Compare also 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." This suggests he can masquerade in other forms. But it's possible Paul means this only in a spiritual way, which says nothing of Satan’s ability to appear in human form.

Whether or not demons have the ability to appear like humans, I think one thing is definite. The Bible presents no clear evidence that demonic impostors are something we should expect or specially beware. If you meet a very bad man, go ahead and think, "that's a bad man," not, "he might be a demon." Personally, if necessary, I’d call the police and not an exorcist to make sure.

Is God actually jealous?

Now and then people ask what the Bible means when it says God is jealous. For instance, Exodus 20 declares, “the LORD your God is a jealous God, visiting iniquity upon the wicked.” Since God is incapable of sin, what do these texts mean? I think the answer will not only help you understand but even appreciate the Bible’s description of our “jealous” God. But first, let’s get something clear about the words we use to describe God.

Analogical Language

God is uncreated and transcendently wonderful. His perfections infinitely exceed the experience and comprehension possible to creatures. For that reason, when the Bible sets out to describe the Lord’s nature and attributes, it cannot do so comprehensively. There are simply no human words to fully convey his glorious being. Instead, it uses what we might call "analogical" language. That is, it speaks truthfully in ways accommodated to our finite comprehension by employing metaphors and analogies based on created things humans can relate to. God’s providence is described as a mighty hand. His omniscience is likened to eyes. Even exact descriptions, such as “the Lord is faithful,” rely upon a human conception of faithfulness that falls short of the infinitude of God’s faithfulness.

Analogies about God necessarily fall short but that doesn't mean they are useless. For instance, if I was trying to explain the taste of coffee to someone who had never tasted it, I might say, "it's a brewed beverage somewhat like tea but stronger and nuttier." Anyone who has tasted both coffee and tea might object that the two are very different, and they are in comparison to one another. But to the one who has only tasted tea, the analogy prevents them from imagining coffee to be anything like milk, beer, or wine. It puts them in the ballpark for conceiving of the thing in question. Even so, human descriptions of God will always fall short of the divine realities which they signify, but they help bring us closer to understanding who he is.

How is God jealous?

Now, back to the word "jealousy." Obviously, God is sinless. Therefore, whatever is communicated by the term. “jealousy” must not signify any fault within the divine being. Sadly, as sinners, our best feelings are tinged with sin and selfishness and jealousy is no exception. Our experience of that feeling is typically intermixed with pettiness, envy, and distrust. But in God's case, "jealousy" represents only the purest motives and feelings connected with the term.

By way of illustration, suppose a wife discovers her husband has been cheating on her. Jealousy in this case is not entirely unwarranted or sinful. Rather, feelings of disappointment, grief, and wrath work together in this instance to manifest the wife’s high regard for marriage itself, as well as for their mutual commitment and her own personal dignity, all of which are slighted by adultery. For the wife to be entirely without jealousy would imply a sinful indifference to the sanctity of marriage and the evil of adultery. Therefore we can say that jealousy in its purest sense is a righteous zeal for the honor and integrity of something or someone.

Even so, God's jealousy is a pure and fervent regard both for divine honor as well as for the sacred bond he shares with believers in Christ, a relationship comparable to marriage (cf. Eph 6:1ff). For God to be without such jealousy would actually be a fault as it would mean he is indifferent to sin and idolatry. But let me add one word of advice. We must be careful not to slip lazily into thinking of God monopersonally, as the world generally does. No, as Christians, we must think of God's attributes, especially jealousy, tripersonally. That is, understanding that each Person of the Trinity is not concerned for himself so much as for the dignity of the other divine Persons. The Father is appropriately jealous for his Son to be accorded due honor. The Son is similarly jealous for his Father to be revered. The Holy Spirit is zealous for the Father and Son to be cherished and obeyed. Thinking tripersonally of God’s jealousy prevents us from collapsing divine motives into selfishness.

I hope this answer helps you to appreciate this often misunderstood aspect of God revealed in the Word. The Lord bless your studies and service!

How Does One Become a Pastor?

I was recently asked, “How does one become a pastor?”

The short answer is, by God's grace!

Basically, there are several steps.

First, there needs to be some knowledge of what the role involves. How can you wish to pastor if you don't know what they do? Also, there has to be a strong desire to perform that role, God willing. It's more than a job. It's a calling. So it can't be about money, but about the desire to minister the good news of Jesus and care for his flock.

Next, the would-be pastor needs to develop his God-given abilities and understanding, so as to prove that he may in fact be called. For instance, he needs to be a diligent student, speak and write clearly, learn to resolve conflicts between people, interpret the Bible accurately, and above all to pray. This process usually takes many years.

From this point, the path into most Reformed pastorates would be to attend college as well as seminary. Seminary is an additional 3-4 years of schooling in the biblical languages, theology, and pastoral skills like counseling. It's a long and difficult road, but very rewarding and completely worthwhile. Without seminary, I would be far less equipped for my role.

Finally, if the person is able to pass special ordination exams, then a local church or presbytery may call him to serve as their pastor.

Let me say, pastoring is both the hardest and most satisfying work I can imagine myself doing. It is also very necessary. But there are few who are able and willing to do it. So if God calls you to pastor, I'll rejoice!

when it seems like Loving Others Means Harming Ourselves

Recently, I received some thoughtful questions related to the following statement by John Calvin:

…in everything we care best for ourselves, if we become absorbed in love toward others…

Is it not true, however, that our very desire to “be absorbed in love toward others” sometimes results in self-harm? A wife who cares for her impaired husband might neglect her own spiritual, physical, and social well being. It’s not uncommon to hear of social workers investing extraordinary time and care in their work, later succumbing to depression and burnout. In such cases, Calvin’s words seem to fall flat. So what do we make of his claim that “we care best for ourselves, if we become absorbed in love toward others”?

I cannot speak directly for Calvin, but I can try to place his words in what I think is their intended context.

His statement takes several things for granted, starting with what constitutes genuine love. According to 1 Corinthians 13, Christian love is not just a general well-wishing, but is a yearning on behalf of others for that which is most pleasing to the Lord and most good for them. Ordinarily speaking, this love is not self-destructive but sustainable, since the good of others includes our ability to continue doing them good. For that reason, if you help others in ways that are ultimately self-defeating, such as working yourself ragged, you are probably not “absorbed in love,” but in a whole mixture of good, evil, and ignorant intentions.

Suppose a man wishing to benefit his family misidentifies their “good” and how to achieve it. He views their well being primarily in terms of having an income that can only be realized by neglecting his own spiritual life and physical health. Would we say this man is truly absorbed in “love,” as defined by the Word? Is he not driven in part by error, fear, or pride? I think that Calvin’s point is that being absorbed in love for others means seeking good ends by good means. Today’s love shouldn’t come at the expense of tomorrow’s.

“Being absorbed in love for others means seeking good ends by good means. Today’s love shouldn’t come at the expense of tomorrow’s.”

According to this ideal, who but Christ is ever fully "absorbed in love"? I know I am not. Yet we may approximate Christ’s love when we remain mindful both of our responsibilities and our limitations. This was illustrated once when Jesus looked upon “fields white with harvest,” representing boundless opportunities for ministry. On that occasion, the Lord did not teach his disciples to pray, “God, make me a super servant who can carry out this work alone.” No, he bade them, “pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Mt 9:38).

In his book, The Imperfect Pastor, Zack Eswine makes an excellent point that John the Baptist declared what many of us in practice deny: "I am not the Christ" (Jn 1:20). All too often, we feel obligated to love as only Christ can love. Moreover, we feel unloving if we do not at least attempt to transcend our finite natures. But in reality, confessing “I am not the Christ,” means I will I never be omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent . That is, my duty to love will never include having or desiring perfect knowledge about how to love others. Nor can I be everywhere for everyone at once. Above all, “I am not the Christ,” means my love will never come close to being able to doing everything for everyone. Even to wish otherwise is idolatrous! 

From our position as creatures, Christian love includes faith-enabled submission to all kinds of limitations. Love obliges us to accept God’s wisdom in permitting gaps to go unfilled for a time. Love humbles us to receive, engage, and rejoice in the help of others. True love for others is not at odds with God’s love for us, but perfectly integrates with his revealed will.

It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved rest. — Psalm 127:2

The Lord bless you with divine wisdom to be more and more absorbed in love,

Addressing Questions about Infant Baptism

Yesterday, I received the following questions from a member:

Rev. Spotts,
Where does Paul talk about baptism replacing circumcision? What HC Q&A talks about infant baptism? Canons of Dordt? BC? I’ve got a friend who says he needs to “do more research “ on infant baptism.

Thanks!

Now that I've had my coffee, I can begin to address these questions. It makes sense to share them with the church in case others are wondering, too.

The doctrinal standards to which Reformed churches historically subscribe, called the Three Forms of Unity, deal with infant baptism in several places (see excerpts copied further below):

• Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74

• Canons of Dort, Head 1, Art 17

• Belgic Confession 34

As for, “where does Paul talk about baptism replacing circumcision?” The passage that comes to mind is Colossians 2:11-12:

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (ESV)

To be clear, Paul does not simply say that “baptism has replaced circumcision.” The comparison he makes, rather, is that both sacraments serve the same basic purpose on behalf of the recipients and community of faith.

First, both signs outwardly identify recipients with Christ's death and resurrection.

Consider the significance of circumcision given to Abraham and his descendants. In the act, one part of the body was violently removed and cast out from God's presence. Consequently, the rest of the person was counted ceremonially clean. Likewise, Christ was “cut off and cast away” from God's presence as though unclean in order to redeem and purify his true Body, the church. Abraham may not have fully grasped this typology; yet he received it as a “seal of the righteousness which he had by faith,” and therefore somehow connected to the promised “Seed of the woman” who would someday crush the serpent’s head, who would himself be bruised (cf. Gen 3:15). Similarly, baptism is an identification with Christ’s substitutionary death. By recalling Noah's flood and the Red Sea, the water signifies the deluge of divine wrath which fell on Christ in our place.

One might object, "since we can't know if babies believe the promises pictured in baptism, why give them the sign?"

The same objection could be raised about circumcision since, as has been noted, it was “a seal of the righteousness which Abraham had through faith” (Rom 4:11). Yet there is no doubt that circumcision was given to infants despite their apparent inability to repent and believe (see Lk 1:15 and Psa 22:9 on infants who were born again). This suggests the objection actually arises from a misunderstanding of the main purpose of these signs.

The covenantal signs were not given primarily to be symbols or statements of one’s own subjective experiences, whether of repentance, faith, conversion, or devotion. Were that so, the signs would be incapable of providing much comfort in times of personal weakness and sin. Rather, these sacraments graciously point us away from ourselves to the Gospel—to Christ's life-giving death and resurrection—so that we may receive the promises by faith alone. By these tangible symbols, God's hand reaches down to physically assure his church that he is happy to forgive and cleanse all who trust Christ, having given him up to death and raised him for our justification.

The Dual dynamic inherent to covenant signs

“These sacraments graciously point us away from ourselves to the Gospel—to Christ’s life-giving death and resurrection—so that we may receive the promises by faith alone. ”

Doubtless, many Jews were circumcised outwardly who never experienced inward transformation. By contrast, those Colossian Christians whom Paul addressed were physically uncircumcised, yet had been “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” That is, through the miracle of new birth the Holy Spirit had united them spiritually with Christ and his death. This same dual dynamic can be applied to baptism. One may have its outward application without having inward transformation, since only those regenerated by the Holy Spirit have been “baptized with a baptism made without hands.” But ideally, a person has both.

This dynamic also means we never content ourselves merely with external baptism, either for ourselves or our children. The ritual itself does not save our children, nor do we teach covenant children to disregard personal faith. Rather, infant baptism functions as circumcision did then, as an important, God-given tool for evangelizing and discipling them in the faith. It is a picture that compels them to receive the promises pledged to them from infancy, that God cleanses all who trust Christ alone.

Moreover, we accept that God alone can perform the inward miracle, even as it says in Titus 3:4-6,

"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

Summing up

Both in Abraham's day and ours, there has been one people of God being saved by the same faith in Christ. At all times, God places the outward sign of the covenant upon adult professing believers as well as their children. By this means, he graciously establishes the external boundary of the visible church and points us to the Gospel. Therefore, one who rejects infant baptism on the basis that "babies are too little to repent and put faith in Jesus," has fundamentally misunderstood the significance of these signs, making them about what we do rather than what God does for his church through Christ, which is received by faith alone.

Finally, for those wishing to go deeper (pun intended), here is a thorough resource by Rev. Dr. R. Scott Clark:

A Curriculum For Those Wrestling Through Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism

I am grateful to have sat under him, not only as a professor at Westminster Seminary in California, but as my pastor at Oceanside URC, during my transition from credo baptism to the position I now believe most biblical, as well as truly catholic and historically Reformed. May God bless your own study and growth in the faith.

Postscript: Excerpts on Baptism from the Three Forms of Unity

Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74

Q.Should infants also be baptized?
A.Yes.
Infants as well as adults are included in God’s covenant and people,1
and they, no less than adults, are promised deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit who works faith.2
Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too should be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.3
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,4
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.5

1 Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14
2 Isa. 44:1–3O; Acts 2:38–39; 16:31
3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14
4 Gen. 17:9–14
5 Col. 2:11–13

Canons of Dort, Head 1, Art 17

Article 17: The Salvation of Deceased Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by his shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood, which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sins.

Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God’s church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may be dedicated entirely to him, bearing his mark and sign. It also witnesses to us that he will be our God forever, since he is our gracious Father. Therefore he has commanded that all those who belong to him be baptized with pure water “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 77

In this way he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.

This does not happen by the physical water but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan.

So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new man” and stripping off the “old,” with all its works. 78

For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it— for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives. For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers.

We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.”79

77 Matt. 28:19
78 Col. 3:9–10
79 Col. 2:11