The Best Argument Against Credobaptism? (Apostasy and the New Covenant)

Added: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]If you're a reformed Baptist, I want you to give me an opportunity to amplify a key point in the credo baptism paedo baptism debate. A point centered on apostasy and the nature of the new covenant. Now, some of you are going to think I've heard all this before and your mind is going to immediately go to Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31. You're going to anticipate Hebrews 10 and so on and that's good. I'm going to assume some basic familiarity so that we can move the discussion forward. I want to get to the nub of the issue and frame it in a fresh way that I think will prove more helpful and hopefully persuasive. So, with all that in mind, here's where we're going in the video. First, I'm going to very briefly remind everyone what the Baptist believes about the nature of the new covenant and why that's significant to the baptism debate. After that, I want to develop three interrelated points about apostasy and why that seriously undermines the credo Baptist view of the new covenant church. Okay? So, quick intro, then three aspects of essential argument. All right.

[00:01:08]Brief recap of Baptist reformed Baptist thought. If you grab a random pile of reformed Baptist books on this subject, it's going to become very evident that reformed Baptist share a united view about the nature of the new covenant church.

[00:01:23]The new covenant church is not a mixed group of believers and unbelievers.

[00:01:27]It is not like the covenants of old that have had both uh regenerate and unregenerate covenant members. The new covenant is made with believers alone, i.e. the elect. And the new covenant is unbreakable.

[00:01:42]These convictions are born out of a consideration of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 along with various other data points.

[00:01:50]In terms of citations, I mean like I said, it is essentially ubiquitous. But just to provide a few, here's Stephen Wellum, I mean pause if you want to read through these and Greg Welty, Peter Goman, John Piper, James White and more could be added.

[00:02:09]The significance of this can scarcely be overstated. In order for paedo baptism to even get off the ground, the new covenant church would have to be a mixed community. If you're going to put the sign of the covenant on infants, which aren't making a public profession of faith, then the covenantal substructure of the church has to differ from the reformed Baptist understanding, which is to say that paedo baptism builds its case on certain Old Testament covenantal continuities that reformed Baptists deny.

[00:02:42]To state it very simply, no one in the covenant church breaks covenant. You can have unbelievers hanging around believers, but they aren't connected to the covenant. They're not really part of the church or the people of God or the body of Christ or the covenant. So, this explains why this issue invariably comes up in credo versus paedo baptism debates. It strikes at the very heart of things.

[00:03:09]>> [clears throat] >> Now, more could certainly be said, but I trust this is a fair sketch.

[00:03:15]Now, as for the threefold argument, I'm going to argue that the new covenant warnings require us to view the church as a mixed covenantal community.

[00:03:26]And here's where I'd like to begin.

[00:03:28]Let me start with a simple statement and flesh out a concept. Okay? Here's the statement. You don't warn a bachelor to remain faithful to his wife.

[00:03:39]Right? You don't warn a bachelor to remain faithful to the woman he's married to.

[00:03:45]Why is that?

[00:03:46]Well, the bachelor isn't married. And since he isn't married, the stipulations of the marital bond don't apply to him.

[00:03:53]He's unmarried.

[00:03:55]So, let's notice something important here. In order for a covenantal warning to be applicable, a person has to be in covenant. In other words, a warning presupposes a relationship. A relationship has to be in place for there to even be a warning, which is to say a covenantal warning only exists in the context of a covenant. If you're in covenant, then the internal stipulations apply. If not, then they don't. So, if a man is married, then he has to remain faithful to his wife. The call to continued fidelity makes sense in that context.

[00:04:34]Now, let's think about the new covenant warnings with this in mind.

[00:04:38]What group of people are the New Testament warnings targeting? Who are they directed at? Who qualifies?

[00:04:46]Answer, the saints. Those who are set apart.

[00:04:51]There is a context where these uh warnings are applicable and there's a context where these warnings are not applicable.

[00:04:58]This is to say that you wouldn't go up to a Buddhist and say, "You need to continue to abide in Christ." Or, "You need to persevere in the faith."

[00:05:08]Why wouldn't you do that? Well, because the Buddhist isn't a believer in Christ, so he can't persevere in faith. The same would be true with remaining in Christ.

[00:05:17]You have to be in Christ before you can remain in Christ.

[00:05:22]This means that the new covenant warnings presuppose a relationship. If you are part of the people of God, then the warnings apply to That's the only context. If you're outside the church, you're called to repent and believe and be baptized to enter. Once you're in the church, the internal warnings apply to you. If a person falls prey to the warnings, then the thing threatened is activated.

[00:05:47]That's the framework.

[00:05:48]So, with this in mind, let's turn to the second point, namely the New Testament warnings themselves.

[00:05:56]If what I've said is true, then we'd expect the New Testament warnings to reflect this reality.

[00:06:01]And they do.

[00:06:02]Time and again, the warnings are directed at the saints. They are the people who are warned. And why are they warned? Because they are objectively connected to the church.

[00:06:12]You can see this through the internal logic of the warnings. For example, Paul can speak of the Galatians as being severed from Christ or having fallen from grace. You can't be severed without having been united in some sense and you can't fall if you weren't standing in some sense.

[00:06:34]Or think of Colossians 1:22 and 23.

[00:06:38]Being presented holy and blameless is conditioned upon continuing in the faith. You have to remain steadfast, which of course presupposes a prior steadiness.

[00:06:49]Same with the idea of not shifting. You need to remain where you are. Don't shift away from where you are.

[00:06:57]Okay, consider one more example. Hebrews 10:35 and 36. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward, for you have need of endurance so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what is promised.

[00:07:13]You can't throw away your confidence if you don't already have confidence that can be thrown away. Similarly, you have need of endurance. Enduring in faith presupposes prior faith. It's there and it needs to continue.

[00:07:28]To this list could be added various other texts, but the point should be plain. The warnings are predicated upon a covenantal relationship. They exist in relation to let's say an objective status, which again is just to say that the warnings exist in relation to the saints. They are the proper recipients.

[00:07:50]Interestingly, this parallels Israel of old. There were warnings that narrowly applied to God's people. If you were marked out and part of that group, then the warnings applied.

[00:08:02]The same is true with baptism in the new covenant. That is the sign and seal. It is objective, much like the marriage covenant. Regardless of one's heart, if a person says, "I do," their status changes. They are not single, they're married. A baptized person bears the name of God. Their status is altered even if their hearts are not circumcised.

[00:08:27]Okay?

[00:08:28]So, let's pull these two first points together. Okay?

[00:08:35]Just a a brief summary of kind of where we're at before we move on to the third point.

[00:08:39]Uh you don't warn a bachelor to remain faithful to his wife because you've got to be married for that admonition to apply.

[00:08:48]This would lead us to think that the new covenant warnings are directed at covenant members. And come to find out, when we investigate the warnings, they operate just like that. They are predicated upon a covenantal relationship. That fact is built right into them.

[00:09:05]This means that when someone falls away from the faith, they fall away from something objective. Because remember, the warnings only apply to those who are proper targets.

[00:09:16]And in the case of the New Testament, the warnings are fundamentally covenantal nature. So, if someone commits apostasy, they're doing so as an actual insider.

[00:09:26]There has to be a relationship to the covenant in some objective sense, otherwise the warning isn't even applicable.

[00:09:35]Okay.

[00:09:36]So, with all that in view, let's let's bring this home by looking at my third point. Here it is.

[00:09:44]The warnings are not hypothetical nor merely designed to cause the elect to persevere.

[00:09:51]People set apart in the covenant community really do commit apostasy and fall away from objective realities.

[00:09:58]In order to disrupt the reformed Baptist claim, one would need to demonstrate that some of the saints actually break covenant or apostatize from covenantal realities.

[00:10:11]With that in mind, is there a way to show that the people of God in the new covenant is a mixed entity?

[00:10:17]Yes, I believe so. And let's just consider a few things. And let's start with Romans 11, I trust a fairly familiar passage.

[00:10:29]In this section, Paul invokes the imagery of the the Old Testament imagery of the olive tree as the people of God.

[00:10:35]It's the covenant community.

[00:10:37]Interestingly, Paul's at some uh Paul says that some notice some of the branches were broken off due to unbelief.

[00:10:46]So, here you have a situation where people are objectively objectively related to the covenant community of God. They were truly part of the olive tree, but are then cut off due to unbelief.

[00:10:59]The warning is not hypothetical.

[00:11:01]And we know it's not hypothetical because there are branches lying on the ground. You can see them. They're broken off and lying in a pile.

[00:11:09]They were in, now they're out.

[00:11:12]Similarly, Gentile branches are grafted into the olive tree.

[00:11:16]And Paul Paul warns them to stand fast through what?

[00:11:22]Through faith.

[00:11:23]Quote, so do not become proud, but fear.

[00:11:26]For if God did not spare the branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and severity of God. Severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you too will be cut off.

[00:11:44]The threat of being cut off is real.

[00:11:46]It's not hypothetical because the foundation of the threat rests on branches having actually been broken off due to unbelief.

[00:11:56]Apostasy from the people of God was possible under prior administrations.

[00:12:01]And apostasy from the people of God is a reality in the new covenant era. The threat is the same. You can be cut out like former people who were cut out.

[00:12:12]This means that there is a conceptual parallel between the breakability of older covenants and the new.

[00:12:19]It means that the church, in principle, is a mixed entity.

[00:12:25]Now, a classic text that always comes up in this regard is Hebrews 10, and for good reason.

[00:12:32]And much has been said about this. So, I just I want to draw our attention to a few details that inexorably lead us to the conclusion that the author of Hebrews believed that covenant breaking was a real threat. Which is to say that the covenant stipulations revealed to us something important about the nature of the new covenant community. Not only is it breakable, but that breakability mirrors former covenantal patterns.

[00:13:01]First, notice Hebrews 10 30, where it says, "For we know him whom him who said, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay.'

[00:13:10]And again, the Lord will judge his people."

[00:13:15]It is worth observing the author's citation, "The Lord will judge his people."

[00:13:20]It likely comes from Deuteronomy through through 32, the song of Moses, where the enemies of God have been triumphed over.

[00:13:27]The author of Hebrews adapts that it seems to adapt it to a situation, saying, as it were, "If you trample the Son of God underfoot, you're going to become an enemy of God. You're going to move from being part of God's people to God's enemy, and you're going to suffer severe judgment. Don't do that. You've been set apart by the blood of the covenant. If you deliberately keep on sinning, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. If you've read Moses and recall Deuteronomy 17:2-7, you'll understand these things."

[00:13:59]It isn't a coincidence why he invokes these concepts. He views the people of God in both the Mosaic covenant and new covenant as sharing covenantal threats.

[00:14:09]And as such, he is more than comfortable invoking the concept of covenant breaking in the Old Testament for apostasy under the New Testament.

[00:14:20]Now, just as an aside, there are some who try to say that Christ is the one who was sanctified in relation to the blood of the covenant in verse 29, not the apostate. And here, they'll appeal to Christ's words in John 17:19, where he says that he sanctifies himself for his disciples. But, this feels extremely awkward given the flow of the argument in Hebrews, and how the author speaks of the recipients being sanctified in 9:13-14, and 10:14-18, and how the pronouns advance through the chapter consistently, and of course, the appeals to Deuteronomy with judgment falling upon the people of God.

[00:15:03]But, more than all that, if you just take a step back and examine the entirety of Hebrews, something decisive emerges.

[00:15:11]The entire thrust of the book is meant to warn Christians against committing apostasy.

[00:15:18]And in so doing, the author utilizes Old Testament covenantal concepts to ground his warnings. Okay, hear that. He invokes Old Testament covenantal structures and examples to ground his warnings.

[00:15:34]For example, he draws parallels with the saints of old seeking to enter the rest and how some of them fell short of it.

[00:15:41]The blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 11 appear to play a significant role in chapter 6:7.

[00:15:47]See Deuteronomy 11:11 and onward.

[00:15:53]And then there's the whole idea of high-handed sins, which is hovering in the background, and which of course points back to Numbers 15 and the surrounding chapters.

[00:16:03]In this regard, just consider Numbers 15:30.

[00:16:06]It reads, "But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord. And that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment. That person shall be utterly cut off. His iniquity shall be on him."

[00:16:30]After a helpful investigation into the Old Testament usage in Hebrews, especially as it relates to the matter of apostasy, Dr. uh Matthew McAfee summarizes things nicely. And I would really encourage his whole article, but here's here's a good summative staten statement.

[00:16:47]>> [snorts] >> As we consider the language of Hebrews 6:4-8 concerning apostasy, the individual who renounces his identity as a member of the new covenant community, in turn, revokes the covenant blessings in exchange for curses.

[00:17:01]The Old Testament covenant significance of the good word as an equivalency for the old covenant blessings only solidifies the fact that we were dealing with legitimate covenant members who have actually received the inaugural blessings of the new covenant reality through the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit.

[00:17:21]What remains to be seen, however, is their perseverance in the life of the new covenant community and the final attainment of the eschatological rest.

[00:17:32]The failure of certain members of the old covenant community constitutes the bedrock of the writer's argument for the new covenant community against the same hardness of heart. If God judged the high-handed sin of that generation, so will he judge such such sin in the new covenant community.

[00:17:52]Now, more could certainly be said about Hebrews. And frankly, more could be said about other pertinent texts like John 15, where the false teachers in 2 Peter and Jude were to said that these figures deny the master who bought them, and that they are accursed children, or twice dead uprooted. All of this imagery reveals a connection with the covenant community that has been forfeited.

[00:18:20]Now, reformed Baptist will be quick to say that apostates apostates were never truly saved, which is fine.

[00:18:30]But, it doesn't avoid the conclusion being drawn here. You can't say that a branch cut out of the olive tree was never a branch in the first place.

[00:18:39]You can't say that branches cut out of the out of the vine in John 15 were never really branches in him.

[00:18:45]You can't say that those who spurned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified were never really sanctified by the blood of the covenant.

[00:18:52]Just like you can't say that a marrying man who breaks his marriage oath was never really married in the first place, or that a circumcised Jew in the Old Testament was never really part of the people of God.

[00:19:09]This is important, and it deserves to be pressed further. So, let me put something on screen so you can see the logic more clearly. All right? Number one.

[00:19:19]The author of Hebrews directs a warning at people who have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Number two, somebody in that context falls away.

[00:19:28]Three, many reformed Baptist will say that the person who fell away was never really part of the covenant community.

[00:19:34]Number four, but this would mean that we are to think that the thing threatened in the warning didn't actually occur. The thing warned about didn't transpire.

[00:19:45]This is to say that they don't think that what happened aligns with the warning, the very thing meant to inform us about what happens.

[00:19:55]Five, so no one ever profanes the blood of the covenant, even when it looks like someone profanes the blood of the covenant.

[00:20:04]Let me say it differently. All right, let's do a different one.

[00:20:08]Warnings presuppose a relationship.

[00:20:10]They're predicated upon it. Think of the bachelor illustration. Number two, someone within the covenant community falls away. Three, the threat result or result envisioned by the warning doesn't transpire because if it did, then we'd have to admit the thing threatened occurred, thereby falsifying the Reformed Baptist view.

[00:20:32]Four, therefore, a different strategy clicks into gear, nullifying the effect of the warning's stated outcome.

[00:20:41]That strategy is to stress that Joe apostate was never really born again in the first place, which may be true, but it isn't the full story.

[00:20:50]Six, basically, the thing threatened in a warning never occurs, which is an exceedingly odd thing to think. I mean, we're never supposed to view people who turn away as falling prey to the stated realities described in the warnings.

[00:21:07]I think that's a hard pill to swallow.

[00:21:09]If we aren't willing to bite the bullet and say that regenerate people ultimately forfeit salvation, then there has to be another layer of explanation, a covenantal layer, whereby people experience a number of spiritual blessings, but since they're only externally related to the covenant, not having a vital union, then when they fall away, they forfeit those objective realities. They are covenant breakers in some relevant sense.

[00:21:38]Not only does this make sense of the internal logic of the warnings, but it squares nicely with the biblical data.

[00:21:44]It allows us to avoid an over-realized ecclesiology, if you will. It allows us to say with a straight face that some Christians reject Christ to their peril.

[00:21:57]Okay.

[00:21:59]Let me just say a few additional remarks as we reach the end.

[00:22:05]Number one, if what I have said is correct, it doesn't prove paedo-baptism, okay? Doesn't prove it. All this is meant to show is that the Reformed Baptist view of the new covenant community is flawed. All right? That's all this is seeking to do. Two, nothing has been said about Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. Those raise important questions that deserve careful thought.

[00:22:28]I think there's a mis- step in the Baptist thinking about Hebrews 8 and breakability, but that should probably wait for another time.

[00:22:38]And lastly, it's difficult to discern exactly what spiritual blessings apostates shared before rejecting Christ. I mean, this just has to be admitted.

[00:22:49]Various Reformed thinkers have spoken of temporary faith and even evanescent grace. We see the Holy Spirit working in the life of people who do not know the Lord. Think of Judas or what Christ says in Matthew 7, etc. And the biblical authors comfortably speak in ways that make all Reformed types uncomfortable. I mean, I've struggled with this for years and years, but there appears to be texts that stubbornly require us to view apostates as having an ontologically different spiritual state of affairs than the elect.

[00:23:24]All that being said, the apostles weren't terribly concerned with parsing those differences out.

[00:23:33]In the end, the internal logic of a warning, along with the explicit framing of the New Testament warnings, along with examples of apostates falling from objective new covenant reality, poses not only a problem for Reformed Baptists, but I would submit an actual defeater.

[00:23:54]Well, as always, thank you for your time, and please like, subscribe, and comment. I do read the comments, and I will often reply if, you know, if you interact with the subject matter actually at hand. So, I look forward to hearing feed- I really would like to hear from Reformed Baptists and have a good faith conversational on this. Um I do think this is a sticky issue that um poses a real challenge. So, please, um yeah, share your thoughts. Reach out to me.

[00:24:23]Cheers, everyone.