The Upper Register Blog

In blogging through By Oath Consigned I’ve covered Kline’s argument for infant baptism. It’s interesting to see the parallels with the argument of Charles Hodge. Both Kline and Hodge avoid presumptive regeneration as the basis for infant baptism and instead appeal to the concept of membership in the covenant of grace or visible church. The point is useful in countering the Federal Vision argument that relies on baptismal regeneration. 

Hodge’s argument goes like this:

In the present discussion, by the Church is meant what is called the visible Church; that is, the whole body of those who profess the true religion … With regard to infant baptism the following propositions may be maintained.

1. The visible Church is a divine institution …

2. The visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate …

3. The commonwealth of Israel was the Church …

4. The [visible] Church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old. It is not a new Church, but one and the same. It is the same olive-tree (Rom. 11:16-17). It is founded on the same covenant, the covenant made with Abraham …

5. The terms of admission into the [visible] Church before the advent were the same that are required into the Christian Church …

6. Infants were members of the [visible] Church under the Old Testament economy … This is really the turning point in the controversy concerning infant church-membership. If the Church is one under both dispensations; if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, then they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved.

7. There is nothing in the New Testament which justifies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the Church …

8. Children need, and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption …

[Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. III, pp. 546-58.]

I think this is a pretty sound argument for infant baptism. I like Hodge’s approach because it starts out with the concept of the visible church:

In order to justify the baptism of infants, we must attain and authenticate such an idea of the Church as that it shall include the children of believing parents.

Indeed, ecclesiology is the key to the whole debate — as any baptist who has struggled with this issue and ultimately switched over to the paedobaptist position knows. 

However, Hodge’s argument does need a bit of Klinean tweaking. Kline would not agree that “the Church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old” (proposition 4). The word “identical” obscures the legitimate differences between Israel and the Christian church that even Hodge would acknowledge – chief among them the fact that Israel was a national church. Or, to use Kline’s language, Israel was theocracy in which cult and culture were institutionally integrated as an intrusionary prototype of the eschatological kingdom. The church is not a theocracy, and its relationship to culture follows the patriarchal pilgrim model, which is very different from Israel’s conquest model (a difference that was painfully clear to the inhabitants of Canaan!).

But I don’t think Hodge’s argument rests on the word “identical” in proposition 4. Actually, you could delete proposition 4 and move straight to proposition 5 — “the terms of admission were the same” — and the argument still works.

Here’s a summary of Kline’s argument for infant baptism:

(1) Kline’s argument for infant baptism avoids the notion of presumptive regeneration and relies on the principle of parental authority.

(2) Kline appeals to the principle of vassal authority, that is, the principle that when a vassal takes an oath of loyalty to his suzerain, he brings not only himself but also his family under the covenant lordship of the suzerain.

(3) Kline sees this principle of vassal authority in the Abrahamic Covenant.

(4) Kline sees this principle of vassal authority continued from the Abrahamic Covenant (the pre-Messianic administration of the covenant of grace) into the New Covenant (the fulfilled, Messianic administration of the covenant of grace). Although Kline sees discontinuity between the Mosaic/Old Covenant and the New Covenant, he sees fundamental continuity along the underlying substratum of the one covenant of grace as it moves from promise (Abrahamic Covenant) to fulfillment (New Covenant).

(5) The case for continuity in the administration of the sign of the covenant on the basis of parental authority rests on the following pieces of evidence:

a. Paul’s teaching that our children are “holy” (1 Cor 7:14)
b. The parents who brought their children to be blessed by Jesus
c. Paul’s instructions to parents and children (Eph 6:1-4)
d. The oikos formula

With this post I’m done blogging through By Oath Consigned.

Okay, I was able to fix the corrupted file. I have now uploaded The Oikos Formula (PDF 12 pp.) which contains all of the references to the oikos (household) formula in both the Old and the New Testament. My paper is based primarily on the work of Jeremias who argues that the formula is rooted in LXX usage and refers to the immediate family unit, with particular focus on the under-age children. He thinks household servants are not normally in view when the formula is used. Kline is not as confident as Jeremias that servants are excluded, so he spends 9 pages (BOC, pp. 94-102) wrestling with this problem. Personally, I lean toward Jeremias’s approach which is in any case complementary to Kline’s.

The fourth piece of evidence that baptism is administered on the principle of vassal or parental authority: 

(d) The oikos (household) formula

Finally, Kline appeals to the New Testament accounts of household baptisms where the household is baptized or brought into the church on the basis of the confession of faith of the parent (Acts 2:38-39; 10:2, 47-48; 11:14; 16:15, 33-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19). The “oikos formula” refers to the recurring statement that “he/she and his/her (whole) household” believed and were baptized. This paedobaptist argument was famously articulated by Joachim Jeremias in the 1960s.

Kline thinks the oikos formula supports the paedobaptist view that the principle of parental authority carries forward into the New Covenant. Of course, there are difficulties with using these texts:  (a) we don’t know whether small children were actually present in any of these cases, and (b) since slaves were also members of the Greco-Roman oikos (household), the paedobaptist appeal to the oikos formula may lead to the unwanted conclusion that slaves should also be baptized. Kline recognizes these difficulties, but wishes to makes the following point (BOC, pp. 96-98):

We would simply observe that for the purpose of substantiating the authority principle of covenant administration the precise constituency of the households involved would not need to be determined. Whether or not there were infant children in one case or the other, or slaves in this or that household, households are mentioned along with the central authority figures in these instances, and these households had to consist of somebody in the category of household subordinates. Even with respect to the narrower question of whether parental authority is honored in the administration of the New Covenant, it would not matter whether conclusive evidence could be adduced proving that there were no children in any of these households; for if there were no children, then surely the households consisted of servants; and if it could be shown that servants were received into the church on the basis of the authority principle, it would follow a fortiori that the continuity with Old Testament practice included infants too …

The recurring mention of the household along with the central figure, whether in description of an existing God-fearing community, or in an invitation to salvation, or in an account of the acknowledgment of faith, or in a record of the administration of baptism, can very naturally be interpreted as the terminological reflex of a standard missions policy according to which the covenant community would regularly be enlarged through the accretion of household authority units. Indeed, it seems easier, particularly in the cases of prospective announcements of salvation and evangelistic proclamation (Acts 11:14; 16:31), to account for the recurrence of the appended reference to the household as a statement reflecting administrative policy rather than as a prediction based on a possible general rule that the sovereign soteric operations of the Spirit of God permeate intimate groupings of men. To explain the language of these declarations as meaning that the invitation with its terms was not confined to the householder but was extended to the members of his household, they, too, being invited to salvation on the same condition of faith, seems somewhat artificial; moreover, it would not explain the phenomenon of recurrence.

[Note: I have some additional information on the oikos formula based on Jeremias’s work that I’m trying to upload, but Adobe says the file is corrupted. Hopefully I can resolve the problem by tomorrow.]

The third piece of evidence: 

(c) Paul’s instructions concerning parents and children

Continuing in the same paragraph, Kline writes (BOC, p. 94):

Another significant fact is that Paul instructed the children of various congregations to obey their parents in the Lord, and in support of his charge cited the pertinent stipulation of the Sinaitic Covenant together with its accompanying covenantal sanction (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20; cf. Ex. 20:12). Clear confirmation is also found in Paul’s directive to covenant parents to bring their children under the nurturing and admonishing authority of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In this exhortation the apostle takes for granted that it is the very authority of Christ as covenant Lord that reaches and claims children through the authority of their parents.*

It is therefore a matter of express scriptural teaching that the disciple of Christ is bound to bring those who are under his parental authority along with himself when he comes by oath under the higher authority of his covenant Suzerain. From this it follows that the Scriptures provide ample warrant for the administration of baptism to the children of confessing Christians, for baptism is the New Covenant rite whose precise significance is that of committal to Christ’s authority and of incorporation within the domain of Christ’s covenant lordship.

*The text reads:  “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord [ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου]” (Eph 6:4). Kline appears to take κυρίου as a subjective genitive. This is the view taken by Ernest Best in his commentary on Ephesians:  ”The Lord [is] seen as the ultimate instructor who works through the father … The father mediates the Lord’s instruction” (Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 569-70). 

The second piece of evidence that the principle of parental authority continues in the New Covenant: 

(b) The parents who brought their children to Jesus to be blessed

Kline’s comments here are brief but telling (BOC, pp. 93-94):

In the discussion of infant baptism the episode of the bringing of the children to Jesus (Matt. 19:13-15; Mk. 10:13-16; Lk. 18:15-17) has been the source of considerable contention. But in support of the point we would make we need gather no more from that episode than that our Lord heartily approved when those with parental authority over these children exercised it to bring them to him and place them under the authority of his ministry. And that much at least would seem to be beyond debate.

Kline’s thesis is that the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (baptism) is administered not only to adult confessors, but also to their children on the principle of vassal or parental authority. The first piece of evidence that Kline appeals to is:

(a) Our children are “holy” (1 Cor 7:14)

Dealing with the problem of (religiously) mixed marriages, Paul says:  “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”

The problem that must first be addressed is what kind of “holiness” is in view here? Kline argues that it is cultic/covenantal holiness, not internal sanctification of heart that applies only to the elect (BOC, pp. 91-93):

Treating first the case of the children of the mixed marriages under discussion by the apostle, there does not seem to be any way to construe the holiness ascribed to them other than as a holiness of status … In what, then, does the holiness of the children’s status consist? In accordance with the biblical concept of holiness it will have to involve some sort of dedicatory separation unto the name of God, a consecration to his service and glory. Clearly it is not the holy consecration of subjective-spiritual condition … Since I Corinthians 7:14 provides evidence that the cultic corollary of the authority principle was operative in the apostolic church, this passage may be cited in support of the thesis that the authority principle is still in effect in the administration of the New Covenant, at least in the form of parental authority.

In other words, the holiness of covenant children here must be understood in a sense that could apply to both regenerate and unregenerate. It must be understood in a cultic sense as a holiness of status and separation unto God, not in the sense of internal holiness via regeneration. The cultic concept of holiness in the Old Testament applied even to the furniture of the tabernacle and the priests, without indicating salvific status. Therefore, holiness here is tantamount to covenant membership. And Paul clearly says that the children of at least one believing parent are “holy” in that sense.

The Baptist objection to the paedobaptist use of 1 Cor 7:14 is that if one wants to use this passage to prove that the child of at least one professing believer is to be regarded as a member of the church, then to be consistent one must include the unbelieving spouse as well. Here is Kline’s counter to the Baptist objection (BOC, p. 93):

While the similarity of terminology in verse 14a and 14b of I Corinthians 7 requires that the sanctification be of the same kind (i.e., cultic) in the case of the unbelieving parents and of the children, it is an unjustifiably wooden approach to the apostle’s words that insists that this cultic sanctification must apply in exactly the same manner in the two cases.  Rather than think of sanctification of status in the case of the unbelieving parents it is possible and, it seems, preferable to understand that their holiness, which Paul describes as possessed in the believing spouse, is a sanctification of these unbelievers in the functioning of the marriage relationship and particularly in that role which fulfills the central and distinctive purpose of marriage. In effect, the force of the language is then that the marriage relationship itself was sanctified by virtue of the presence of the believer unto the service of the holy covenant of God and specifically unto the securing of a holy seed.

(2) The principle of vassal authority in the New Covenant

The next step in Kline’s argument for infant baptism is to show that the principle of vassal authority is also present in the administration of baptism under the New Covenant. Specifically, the principle of vassal authority is expressed in the form of parental authority. Kline rejects the theory of presumptive regeneration as the basis for infant baptism (BOC, p. 90), and argues for infant baptism by appealing to the principle of parental authority, a principle of covenant administraion which he sees as continuing from the Abrahamic Covenant into its fulfilled form, the New Covenant.

BOC, p. 91:

For us the pertinent question is whether the covenant for which baptism serves as oath sign of incorporation is, like the divine covenants of the Old Testament and the parallel vassal covenants of the ancient world, a relationship of authority spheres rather than simply of individuals … The pattern of authority is not peripheral but central in the vassal covenant form, and therefore the whole weight of the historical case for identifying the New Covenant as a continuation of the earlier Suzerain vassal covenants presses for the conclusion that this New Covenant is administered to confessors not just as individuals but as heads of authority units.

Kline appeals to four pieces of NT evidence in support of his thesis that the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (baptism) is administered on the principle of vassal or parental authority. I’ll explain that evidence over the next four posts.

Chapter six is the final chapter of By Oath Consigned. In it, Kline ties everything together and makes his case for infant baptism. Aside from a few phrases related to issues that I have already covered (e.g., identifying the New Covenant as a law covenant), there is little in BOC ch. 6 that Kline would have wanted to revise. For this reason I will only be examining the continuities and will not have any posts on discontinuities.

(1) The principle of vassal authority in the Abrahamic Covenant

Kline’s argument for infant baptism begins by appealing to the ANE suzerainty treaties. He quotes a number of these treaties and shows that they were covenants that were made not merely between individuals but between a great king (or suzerain) and a servant king (or vassal), together with his subjects and descendants. For example, one treaty states that Esarhaddon “has made you take an oath that you will relate [the treaty provisions] to your sons and to your grandsons, to your seed, to your seed’s seed which shall be (born) in the future” (BOC, p. 85).

On the basis of such statements in the ANE treaties Kline makes the following observation (BOC, p. 85):

It is of course obvious from the whole purpose of these treaties that the vassal king in taking the ratificatory oath did so in his capacity as king and thus brought his kingdom with him into the relationship of allegiance to the suzerain. Moreover, from express statements in the treaties we know that the vassal king assumed responsibility for his sons and more remote descendants, consigning them with himself in his covenant oath. Consequently, these descendants are mentioned in the curses as objects of divine vengeance if the covenant sworn by the vassal king should be broken.

Kline then shows the principle of vassal authority was also at work in the administration of circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant (BOC, p. 89):

We conclude, then, that the principle of vassal authority was integral to the administration of circumcision as sign of entrance into God’s redemptive covenant. Confession of Yahweh’s lordship as a matter of personal faith constituted the necessary nucleus and historical beginning for the administration of the rite, and thus for the formal establishment of the covenant community for which circumcision was (paradoxically) the sign of inclusion. There had to be an Abraham. But Abraham could not enter into this oath and covenant simply as an individual. It was Abraham the parent householder, Abraham the patriarch, to whom God gave the covenant of circumcision. In keeping with the nature of the covenant as that may be discerned in the light of the most relevant biblical and extra biblical data, covenantal incorporation into the kingdom of God did not proceed exclusively in terms of individual confession. The formation of the ancient covenant community was rather a process of incorporating households which were under the authority of a confessing servant of the Lord.