Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace

by Paul King Jewett

A work of first-rate scholarship in which Paul Jewett writes the most persuasive case ever to demolish the best arguments posed in favor of infant baptism, showing this practice to be an unbiblical vestige of ecclesiastical tradition. Jewett demonstrates that only the only valid New Testament baptism is "believer's baptism". His criticisms of paedobaptist arguments from Augustine down to Jeremias are thorough and devastating.

Genres: Theology, Ecclesiology, Christian, Church, Christianity, Childrens, Nonfiction

268 pages, Paperback

First published July 19, 1978

Reviews

[Andrzej Stelmasiak · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am in the process of preparing for a debate that will take place next month in the EFCC (where I was ordained), and will be representing Reformed view of Baptism, so decided to refresh myself with reading some Baptist literature.

Thus far (I am on page 150), I can say that I was hoping for a lot more. Jewett's language is not charitable when he is referring to paedobaptists, but that's an aside.
The reason why this book is not able to achieve what many would like it to do, is that despite him referring to and quoting our sources, he is still analysing it from the outside, from Baptist point of view. It seems that he assumes (I have not seen it stated in the book yet) that being in the New Covenant and election are two exactly the same things. So he is doomed to fail with his work. And his reading of the New Testament betrays emphasis on individualism with no recognition of corporate aspects while minimising inward reality of the Old Testament, present there even without the New.
I am not sure if this review is going to change after I will complete reading it. He has yet to show the Baptist point of view.

Low rating I gave it has nothing to do with the position he is defending.

I have decided to read it after seeing JV Fesko mentioning it in his book, which is far better example of how to argue for a case - he is charitable and irenic, and instead of attacking he explains. (He, of course, argues for Reformed view).

Edit: one star raised for attempt to deal with arguments against Baptist view. But he took the view on Acts 15 and circumcision that has been refuted by Baptists and Reformed time and time again, and when it comes to charge of individualism that is rooted in renaissance he dismissed it and said that it's actually okay as long is it's biblical, and he didn't deal at all with the fact that it were different lenses for the first time to read the Bible since reading it through the Old Testament 'corporate' lenses.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book I have read arguing the Baptist case. Outstanding.

[Josiah Hasbrouck]

This is a mixed bag, as some of Jewett's arguments seem to rely on mischaracterizations of a few presbyterian positions. Overall, though, he offers a pretty formidable critique of paedobaptism

[Austin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, but it didn’t live up to the hype. Jewett does a good job in pointing out that the case for infant baptism made by the Reformed over the centuries has not been overly unified. Arguments for the practice have been quite diverse. He also does a good job when it comes to walking through and countering arguments logically. As a specific example, Jewett does a good job in showing that the presuppositions about covenant theology that lead to paedobaptism logically lead to paedocommunion. However, the book is very light on exegesis, and for that reason it wasn’t overly persuasive.

[Landon Butler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book of polemical theology. In it, Paul K. Jewett argues from a Reformed perspective against paedobaptism in favor of “believer baptism”. He dismantles the opposing position point by point, without throwing away the core of covenant theology. He shows how the covenant of grace as it unfolds historically from type to reality logically excludes infant baptism. The only downside to the book is that he doesn’t spend enough time developing the positive position for believer baptism. He spends 215 pages dismantling the case for infant baptism, while only leaving the last 43 pages for believer baptism (and even half of that just deals with objections to it). Even if you don’t change your mind by the end of the book, you will better appreciate both positions, and deepen your understanding of baptism. I would heartily recommend it to someone struggling through the issues involved with baptism.

[Jake Litwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book critiquing the paedobaptist position from a historical, scriptural, and covenantal perspective. Jewett opens the book with historical questions in tracing infant baptism in the early church. Really fascinating study to see how early did this practice actually take place. He then moves right into defining “household baptisms” and exposes the common “go to passages” for infant baptism. He spends a great amount of time working through defining baptism from Scripture, covenant theology, and interacting not only with the Reformed position but the Lutheran and Anglican position as well. Jewett covers material from Calvin, Luther, Baxter, Warfield, Murray, Barth, and more. This work seems to be underrated since there is never ending ink spilled today on both sides of the issue but definitely worth reading and considering.

[Timothy Dehne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! The best book I have found from a Baptist perspective.

[Ming Chen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid Baptist defense of believer's baptism, surveying historical and theological issues related to infant baptism and then briefly defending believer's baptism. The author deals with a more symbolic or cognitive view of baptism rather than a causal view, namely with evangelical branches rather than Roman Catholic beliefs. Jewett is consistently clear and cites paedobaptist arguments at length from heavyweights like Calvin, Luther, or others. He also takes a covenantal view.

I will need to see whether there are effective paedobaptist responses, as most paedobaptist arguments popularly espoused were dealt with well here. This book also served to elucidate the connection of paedobaptism to notions like theocracy or theonomy for me.

Excellent.

[Pedro Issa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good read, but not splendid.

Jewett's enterprise focuses on the covenant-centered arguments in defense of infant baptism. His book is divided into three parts. The first one is a historical quest, the second, a theological approach, and the third one a multifaceted defense of believer baptism.

The first two parts comprise 85% of the book. That displays the nature of the book: it is not a vigorous exegetical/hermeneutical edifice pro credobaptism. It is actually a thorough critical exposition of the paedobaptist position. The greater part of Jewett's work is a description of the paedobaptist theses along with his criticisms to it. In the last 25 pages he ventures himself in proposing a more or less structured argument in favor of credobaptism. After some monotony of exposition-analysis throughout the reading, one might find this last part of the book to be one of its best slices.

One of the reasons this is just a very good book, and not a splendid one, is that Jewett is usually very succinct in his criticisms. Frequently he spends more time explaining the paedobaptist position then in criticizing it. Some of his arguments are so clear and cogent that one is plainly satisfied with a one-page appraisal, but at moments you might just feel like screaming for further comments on the subject. The book is very judicious and learned, but it is not unusual to see Jewett using expressions such as "historians say.. theologians agree..." without actually setting the references. This is not to doubt his honesty, but it exasperates a bit those looking for more references and further reading.

If you are looking forward to understand the major arguments from padobaptist theologians, together with a brief and punctual criticism of all of them, then this is the best. If your goal is to contemplate a whole systematic defense of credobaptist position, then you might very likely get a little frustrated (although Jewett's insights on the last part of the book are surprisingly sharp and groundbreaking). My guess is that baptist covenant theology was still to be unearthed when he wrote.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lordship term 2.

C'mon, I know there's more to be said for credo-baptism than this tripe.

[David Goetz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I admit up front that I'm a baptist and therefore disposed to agree with Jewett. That said, this is a well-written book and, in my judgment, a cogent argument for believer baptism. Reformed theologian Keith Mathison says, "Of all the books defending believer's baptism and critiquing infant baptism, Paul Jewett's remains, without question, the best by far." Additionally, it's the first work of theology I've ever read that caused me to laugh out loud regularly (in a good way).

In the book's first part, Jewett considers the historical question surrounding infant baptism. Eerdmans published this volume nearly 40 years ago, so some evidence might be adduced now for or against infant baptism that wasn't available to Jewett in 1978; that said, if there is such evidence, I'm unaware of it. Advocates of infant baptism claim that "the whole of the early church was unanimous about infant baptism" (Special Commission on Baptism of the Pres. Church of Scotland). Jewett notes that most historical arguments for infant baptism start with the New Testament or the apostolic fathers and then proceed down to Augustine; this allows them to end on a positive note, as Augustine in particular clearly practiced and promoted infant baptism. Jewett takes the opposite approach: he begins with Augustine and then moves backward in time, noting that Tertullian's De Baptismo, published at the beginning of the 3C, contains "the earliest express mention of infant baptism in the history of the church," and he actually opposes the practice (21)! In the Eastern church, we don't find any indisputable references to the practice prior to Origen. It's striking, in fact, that Basil the Great and Cyril of Jerusalem say nothing whatsoever about infant baptism, this despite the fact that Cyril composed the fullest account of baptism of the 4C! And Gregory Nazianzen stated clearly, in a sermon given at Constantinople in 381, that he preferred a child to be baptized around the age of 3, when he/she could hear the questions and answer for him/herself. All of this and more renders it implausible that infant baptism was the "unanimous" practice of the early church. As Justin Martyr said, "We baptize those who are convinced and consent to Christian teaching." In looking at the New Testament documents themselves, Jewett sees no incontrovertible evidence in favor of infant baptism. Arguments for a "household formula" do not withstand scrutiny, and Jewett additionally notes that OT and NT alike prove more than capable of noting explicitly when children are involved. Particular passages often marshalled by Paedobaptists are examined and, I think, demonstrated not to mean what Paedobaptists think they mean.

The historical question does not, of course, decide whether infant baptism is commended to us by the Lord. Jewett therefore turns, in part two, to the theological question. He concerns himself here mainly with the arguments of the Reformed tradition, which he considers to be evangelical defenses of infant baptism. The Lutheran and Anglican positions are identified and responded to, but only very briefly. First, Jewett looks at the argument from the covenant. His basic criticism of the Reformed argument here is that it flattens the history of redemption. In Jewett's language, the Reformed tradition evinces tendencies both to read the OT as though it were the NT and to read the NT as though it were the OT. The old and new covenants are not radically dissimilar (as dispensationalism would have it); neither are they identical at every point (as the Reformed tradition would have it); instead, they are analogous. Jewett points out that the old covenant had external privileges and internal privileges. But NT personalism takes the place of OT nationalism; i.e., the new covenant comes with manifold internal privileges but isn't theocratic. The OT sign of the covenant people--namely, circumcision--was given to all the sons of Abraham (including Ishmael and the sons of Keturah!). This indiscriminate marking of the covenant people is a shadow--typical of new-covenant fulfillment. And the NT makes it very clear that we are new-covenant sons of Abraham if we have the same faith he had. This is radically different from the OT fleshly identification of the covenant people. Yet the Reformed tradition states explicitly that "the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the church have by their birth an interest in the covenant and a right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament" (Directory for the Public Worship of God, composed by the Westminster divines). Jewett, who pulls no punches, responds to this by saying, "These 'children of the covenant,' then, are ascertained to be such in the same literal way that all the members of the Jewish nation were children of the covenant because they were born of Abraham according to the flesh. All a child requires to be counted among God's people is to be born of blood, of the will of the flesh, and of man, provided the man gives credible evidence of being himself a believer" (113). Paedobaptists think, in other words, in terms of external covenant privilege. "Though Protestant theocracies have waned, the theocratic mind lingers on" (114).

Second, Jewett addresses the question of the relationship of infant baptism to the standard Reformed definitions of baptism. He points out that the standard Reformed confessions give ample testimony to the NT's teaching about the inwardness of baptism. Baptism signifies and seals "the new birth," "purging from sins," "washing with [Christ's] blood and Spirit from pollution of soul," "ingrafting into Christ," "regeneration from children of wrath unto children of God," "renewing of the heart," "adoption and resurrection unto everlasting life," "one's giving up of himself to God to walk in newness of life" (140; quoted from First Helvetic, Irish Articles, Thirty-Nine Articles, Heidelberg, French Confession, Westminster Confession, Westminster Shorter, Belgic, Westminster Larger). In other words, the Paedobaptist confessions acknowledge that baptism signifies and seals a work that God has done in the person's heart. Yet Paedobaptists continue to baptize their infants, in whom as yet there is no evidence of a work of God. This gets us into the various ways Paedobaptists have dealt with this problem: presumption of regeneration or of election, the notion that in baptism God gives the infant and/or the parents a conditional promise, the idea that all baptized infants will in time come to the Lord's Table if parents faithfully nurture them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, etc. In short, these all prove inadequate. You cannot define baptism as a sign and seal and then administer it to infants, who cannot have received Christ (though they may, Jewett acknowledges, in fact be regenerate).

Third, Jewett looks at the issue of infant communion vis-a-vis infant baptism. Basically, his point is that it makes no sense to grant infant baptism without also granting infant communion. The distinction between communicant and noncommunicant membership has no NT basis. Jewett grants the analogy of the Passover meal and the Lord's Supper, but he points out that the common Paedobaptist argument that infants didn't eat the Passover meal doesn't fit the evidence. He also criticizes Calvin's notion that baptism is a "passive" sacrament and the Lord's Supper an "active" sacrament: active or middle verbs are used in Scripture with respect to baptism (e.g., Acts 2:41), and the Lord's Supper, in an absolute theological sense, is just as passive as baptism: God nourishes us at his Table. "The argument from the covenant for infant baptism, when managed with adroitness, has about it an aura of plausibility; but the more convincingly it is pressed, the more embarrassed is the defense of believer communion" (207).

As an aside of sorts, Jewett notes that some Paedobaptists have argued for infant baptism as not palatable to human wisdom but as "commended by the wisdom of God" (John Murray, Christian Baptism, 24). Jewett's response is on target: "We submit that infant baptism is in every way palatable to human wisdom. People who accept nothing else in Christianity will have their children baptized--will even be urgent about it. Parents have an April heart when it comes to their offspring, and Paedobaptists know it" (212).

In his closing section, Jewett presents some responses to common objections to believer baptism (individualism, subjectivism, restricting of covenant privilege), and then he lays out, in brief, the theological argument for believer baptism. It runs, in sum, as follows: "The promise of the seed made to Abraham had a twofold reference. In the age of type and anticipation, it embraced not only those who shared Abraham's faith but also the whole nation of Israel, which descended from his loins according to the flesh. In the age of fulfillment the promise embraces the true seed according to the Spirit, typified by the literal seed according to the flesh. This true seed of Abraham is 'born, not of blood nor of t he will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God' (John 1:13). If in the typical age of the Old Testament all the literal seed of Abraham are to be circumcised, then in the age of fulfillment all those who answer to the type as the true seed of Abraham are to be baptized. And who are they? The New Testament gives an unequivocal answer: those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). Therefore, those who are of faith are to be baptized--which is precisely believer baptism" (236).

[Dwain Minor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been doing quite a bit of reading on both sides of the baptism divide. This is far and away the best book defending “Believer’s Baptism” that I’ve read.

He is well versed in the arguments for paedobaptism. He does a good job of examining the great confessions of the Reformed Traditions and seeing the challenges that paedobaptism brings to the actual definitions of baptism that are in them.

[Andrew Mcneill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tour de force of credobaptist doctrine

Jewett's work is an old one but is a brilliant critique of paedobaptist doctrine. By highlighting the lack of recognition of progress in redemptive history, the lack of consistency with regards to infant communion, and the apparent use of a second sacrament of confirmation, Jewett shows that the paedobaptist position is biblically, theologically, and historically wanting.

[Nathan G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This charitable analysis of paedobaptism by a Presbyterian pastor eloquently and decisively demonstrates that covenant theology requires credobaptism in order to be internally consistent. A spectacular example of scholarship that should be read by all on both sides of the debate, not only for its provocative arguments, but for the way it models Christian liberality and good-faith research in a thorny debate.

[Grant Robertson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should have read the preface. Jewett was not going to deal with what baptism is. That is already established. He is going to argue, that from a reformed and evangelical perspective, who should be baptized?

[Scott Moonen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jewett and I have differing world views, but this was a thorough presentation of his view and an able critique of a paedobaptist position that wants to maintain a foot in both camps.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyable

[Simon Wartanian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well written and clear! Loved it!

[Ben Bechtel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some decent arguments but he’s s’salty.

[Hannah S · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was helpful to get a better understanding of infant baptism, including some arguments for it and a Baptist response to those arguments.

[David Couch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thorough. Takes some effort to follow (partially due to the age of the book), but worth it none-the-less.

I intend to reread this again at some point!

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is really a lot to chew on in this book. I've been reading and re-reading it off and on for a long time now, as my wife and I are trying to learn what the Bible says about baptism.

Jewett is a good writer. The material he is tackling is difficult and sometimes technical, but he makes his points clearly and fairly. He is a credobaptist and avoids inaccurate caricatures of paedobaptists, arguing his points with grace and humor. This book is a great example of winsome polemical writing.

This book is divided into three parts, the historical question, the theological question, and believer baptism defined and defended. I read the entire book but spent most of my time on the second and third parts.

What about the arguments themselves? Since I am still evaluating them, I will state them here without further commentary. Jewett is a covenant theologian but believes that paedobaptists make the error of equating the signs of circumcision and baptism. He argues that circumcision had both a spiritual and national/ethical reference while baptism specifically has only a spiritual reference. In his view, paedobaptists overemphasize the continuity of redemptive history and miss the progression of redemptive history. They read the OT as if it were the NT and vice versa.

Throughout the book, Jewett spends time discussing the major Scripture texts that often come up in discussions of baptism: Acts 2, 1 Cor 7, Gen 17. Since these discussions can occasionally miss the Bible altogether, I appreciated these close looks at the text in this book.

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to think carefully about the issue of Christian baptism.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

A standard, and very good defense of credobaptism. Jewett evidences the level of logic and exegesis that I think characterizes much contemporary credobaptist scholarship. In many ways, I think it is Jewett's book that is responsible for the advances credobaptist scholarship has been making over paedobaptist scholarship. (Yes, credobaptists do have a solid history of good scholarship under their belt, so I'm not trying to take that away from them.) I ultimately disagree with Jewett's conclusion, but I appreciate the way he presses the paedobaptist to defend his assumptions. I furthermore think some things he has to say in this book are helpful for a paedo case. But that case needs to be developed in a much more cogent and rigorous way, and I think this case has yet to be fully developed and laid out there by paedobaptist scholars.

[William Duff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I purchased this book because it was given so many five star reviews and because people on both sides of the issue said it was the best book out there in favor of believer baptism. After reading I must say that this book was not over-hyped. If you are trying to figure this issue out and don't work through this book, I think you will leave an important part of your work undone.

[Dan Glover · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I disagree with Jewett's overall conclusion and his over-arching presuppositions about baptism and its relationship to salvation, this is a well researched and carefully exegeted book and a model of scholarship. Jewett is consistent with his theology and this is a strong case for the credo-baptist position (along with George R. Beasley-Murray).

[Bryce Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jewett presents a remarkably exhaustive assessment of each and every argument for, and against, infant Baptism. Be it from logic, covenental history, scriptural evidence, or the early church, this book explores every facet of the issue and presents, in astounding logical clarity, an air tight case for believer's baptism.

[Matt Carpenter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is the best Baptist book on infant baptism that I've read. It presents a view of covenant theology and believer's baptism that answers many questions. That being said, it doesn't fully embrace God's covenant with His people and misses the mark in several instances. Nonetheless it is a good book that Reformed Baptists should be familiar with.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

The greatest defense of believer's only baptism I've read. Though I disagree, I found much of what Jewett had to say very helpful as a critique of some of the bad arguments for infant baptism and it had a refining effect for me. Very good stuff.

[Sean Brand · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe a good book critiquing the infant baptism position. Challenges ons as a Paedobatist to investigate ones position more thoroughly. The authors he criticizes at tines are not necessarily the best from Paedobaptist perspective but I think he did an honest job and made me think.

[Lynette Karg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a critique of infant baptism from a covenental perspective, which makes it unique in the treatment of this subject. Sometimes the arguments go over my head but he brings up some unique considerations.