Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the Covenant, and Children

by David Kingdon

Genres: Theology, Christian, Ecclesiology

First published January 1, 1975

Reviews

[Andrew Meredith · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a former Particular Baptist who once earnestly believed all these things, this book offers me no reason to go back. Here's some half-formed thoughts:

Kingdon: "Baptism, of course, has no national significance whatsoever."
Me: Peter says otherwise in 1 Peter 2. The church is a "holy nation." Baptism is entrance into this nation. Kingdon's also very concerned with "theocracy" throughout, and I'm left to wonder why "God's Rule" is such an undesirable thing for a Christian.

Kingdon: (Paraphrase) The Old Covenant was mixed with both physical and spiritual elements, but the New Covenant is purely spiritual.
Me: This is the Gnostic dualism undergirding much of Baptist theology rearing its head. The New Covenant has physical and spiritual, outward and inward, earthly and heavenly dimensions, too. "Flesh" is just hamfistedly equated with the physical/outward/earthly reality.

Kingdon: "No Presbyterian would insist that believers today are promised the land of Israel."
Me: Who is ruling the land of Israel right now? Who is currently ruling the whole world? Who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28)? Make no mistake, the leaders of Israel, and all other nations beside, are under Jesus's rule and reign (Ps 2), and those in Christ rule with Him.

Kingdon: "Circumcision is related to regeneration, but baptism is not."
Me: Only if you settle in your mind two things. (1) That Titus 3:5 is not referring to baptism (which it is, actually). (2) When Paul says that we have "put on Christ" in baptism, and when Peter says that baptism "now saves you," they are not actually talking about baptism. Kingdon also has a very narrow, individualistic view of regeneration when compared with Christ's (Matt 19:28). (Interestingly, the passages I just referenced from Titus and Matthew are the ONLY places in all the NT where the word "regeneration" is used. Perhaps they should primarily control what it means?)

There's far more, of course. From a butchering of Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2, to equating being "cut off" from Israel with execution, to ignoring all the NT passages where one is also threatened with being "cut off" from the covenant community, to definitively stating that John didn't baptize infants as if Kingdon was there himself (implicit here, but one should also not equate John's baptism with Christian baptism; Acts 19:3-5), to reserving faith exclusively for the intellectually capable but simultaneously not damning every child too young to comprehend (Sola Fide?), to exactly equating the Greek word "sanctified" with the word "saints" in 1 Cor 7:14 because they share the root "holy" (i.e., the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believing one, but the children themselves are "saints"), and on and on.

My paedobaptist convictions remain secure, to say the least. I do appreciate his recognition that there is little logic to barring Covenant children from the Lord's Table (His sacramental body) after baptizing them into His corporate body.

[Ronnie Nichols · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very short work, but a detailed and concise commentary on the Reformed Baptist view of Covenant Theology and the flaws in Paedobaptist covenant theology and ecclesiology. Particularly enjoyed the final chapter on infants. I don't believe that those from the Paedo camp read much from our camp and our unwilling to acknowledge our viewpoint, but this would be a good place to start.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great. Kingdon melds the best of Jewett's view with his own for a simple and direct case for a traditional covenantal view of the Scriptures (not what people present as 1689 federalism) that leads to credobaptism.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Convincing. Helpful on the scriptural meaning of circumcision and how actually it links to baptism. So good to see how 'John's baptism' speaks loudly into the whole debate too.

[Elijah · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the first half of the book was less convincing, I think his argument surrounding the baptism of John was interesting food for thought.

Due to the fact that many distinguish between John’s baptism and the Lord Jesus’, it could be a non sequitur to many Reformed, as it would be not be answering whether Christian baptism is for children. Kingdon certainly forces the Reformed to be consistent (household/covenantal baptism, not merely infant baptism), but I do not think he has convinced me of PB CT or their view of baptism.

Fundamentally, I think that to sustain his polemic in the last chapter he would have to refute the invisible/visible distinction, especially in light of Jude 1:5, amongst other points.

[Matt Gurtler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yeah, pretty convincing.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful for getting an idea of the Reformed Baptist arguments; however, Kingdon's arguments aren't always convincing. I think he sometimes makes false comparisons - e.g. he states that 'circumcision’s fulfilment is regeneration and therefore its anti-type can’t be baptism', but baptism also signifies regeneration, so why is it impossible for them to be corresponding signs? Also, some of the "problems" he sees in the paedobaptist view seem to me to be resolved by a recognition of the distinction between the visible and invisible church.

Having said that, he has some good arguments which made me think, but overall the book probably moved me closer to Presbyterianism than to the Reformed Baptist position.

[Adam Laughton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent little book that explores the Reformed Baptist understanding of Covenant Theology. It is written in a clear way, and is certainly not antagonistic in its criticisms of Paedobaptist theology.

The expanded contents page alone is worth the book cost.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The usual.