What do you think?
Rate this book
To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism - Covenant Mercy for the People of God
The issue of baptism operates against the backdrop of the divine promises to Christian parents. Only after we understand parenthood can we properly turn to a discussion of baptism. This book aims to offer a fresh approach. In a doctrinal matter of this importance, the standards of evidence are high. In arguing for biblical infant baptism, it is not sufficient for us to say that infant baptism is merely consistent with the Scriptures, or that a biblical case can be made for it. In order for us to be satisfied that we are being biblical Christians, we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism.
124 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1996
131 people are currently reading
564 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
319 books4,537 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews
May 22, 2024
So much faulty logic (and way too many words in italics) that I only read half of this book. That was more than enough. I appreciated his irenic tone, but his flow of argumentation was unclear and he often jumped ahead in conclusions and inferences that didn't follow.
April 26, 2022
2022: This was my first time going through this book as a grandmother and loved it even better. What a comfort there is in knowing that the Lord is mighty to save to a thousand generations. His faithfulness really endures forever.
Note: I listened to this book on the Canon + app and it was fantastic.
Note: I listened to this book on the Canon + app and it was fantastic.
Read
December 20, 2023unreal amount of italicization in this book
September 2, 2025
I decided to come to the book without any prejudice or bias, but simply to listen to the arguments, think through them with the author and then make my judgement. He follows some old and worn out paths (i.e. one substance two administrations view of the covenants) but raises some interesting questions, like 'what would 1st century believing parents think if they would not be allowed to baptise their children under the NC', which are rather speculative, but still - it was interesting exercise to think through these things when they hit you from another angle that you did not expect. It was one of the better cases for the practice of infant baptism, but still not good enough to convince me. I appreciated the effort though and like author, I do not think that our baptistic friends should be calling Reformed paedobaptists 'crypto-Roman Catholics', as we are talking about totally different realities here. I am covenantal, Reformed credobaptist and I did not find his arguments convincing in the end but I think those that are already convinced will appreciate it and those Baptists that are non-confessional but Calvinistic can possibly be persuaded - Wilson wrote this book with broadly speaking baptistic audience in mind - but sadly I could not see his arguments engaging with my classic confessional (1689) Reformed Baptist perspective. What I would wish him to do is to engage with that branch of Reformedom, assume less when presenting arguments (as at times I thought - wow, that is a leap! or 'well, that is your framework for this interpretation are but you could assume less here and engage more with the text) and to do his homework re Early church, as this was not good and needs rewriting - I'd recommend this book for further reading (from two respected Reformed paedobaptist scholars) - 'Baptism in the Early Church' by Hendrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw, with the foreword from James M. Renihan.
July 8, 2022
No straw men here. A careful refutation of Baptist claims about who should be baptized. A cogent defense of infant baptism and the modes of baptism. Some have said that the doctrine of infant baptism is an argument from silence. This is an argument from the bellowing sounds of covenant continuity/discontinuity as presented in scripture, and I highly recommend it.
September 20, 2024
Simply phenomenal! Biblically concise and covenantally and exegetically on the money. Wilson takes the classic discussions on baptism, and rightly points out that we have been approaching the conversation incorrectly. When speaking of baptism, we begin with the precise texts that illustrate baptism in the New Testament, however, the correct starting place must be with the covenant. The Covenant is what must inform our studies on baptism, and not the other way around. If you agree, disagree, or are unsure, this treatise is the go-to resource for understanding the covenantal paedobaptist position.
September 24, still my favorite book on the subject.
September 24, still my favorite book on the subject.
January 12, 2024
Read again Jan 2024, great, very helpful.
Totally resolved my ongoing struggles to rectify the P of TULIP with the warning passages. Very helpful book.
Totally resolved my ongoing struggles to rectify the P of TULIP with the warning passages. Very helpful book.
Read
September 4, 2025I wanted to facepalm every other page.
It's quite a while since a book has frustrated me this much. I understand that a brief book like this can't reach the level of precision expected in more academic works BUT I was generally taken aback by how many fallacious arguments and aggressive overstatements could be crammed into these pages.
I was also particularly struck by two paradigmatic features:
1. Making everything about "the Covenant" Wilson's approach makes covenant membership the only form of blessing and any promise God makes has to be tied to this; "the Covenant" becomes a black hole sucking up all other ideas and squashing all distinctions.
2. Folding the New Covenant into the Old; Wilson gives more attention to the detail of the Old Covenant than some presbyterians but the result seems to be that unlike Calvin who leans towards folding the Old Covenant into the New Covenant; Wilson is in danger of folding the New Covenant into the Old...
I'm thinking of writing a point by point refutation on substack but that may take a little time.
It's quite a while since a book has frustrated me this much. I understand that a brief book like this can't reach the level of precision expected in more academic works BUT I was generally taken aback by how many fallacious arguments and aggressive overstatements could be crammed into these pages.
I was also particularly struck by two paradigmatic features:
1. Making everything about "the Covenant" Wilson's approach makes covenant membership the only form of blessing and any promise God makes has to be tied to this; "the Covenant" becomes a black hole sucking up all other ideas and squashing all distinctions.
2. Folding the New Covenant into the Old; Wilson gives more attention to the detail of the Old Covenant than some presbyterians but the result seems to be that unlike Calvin who leans towards folding the Old Covenant into the New Covenant; Wilson is in danger of folding the New Covenant into the Old...
I'm thinking of writing a point by point refutation on substack but that may take a little time.
December 9, 2024
Appreciate this summary from Doug, he provides a lot of good food for thought. He makes a case that is textually clear, though I found it to be a little too textually selective and occasionally lacking in nuance. At the very least, he reminds Christians that we need to think carefully about covenant relations in Scripture's grand narrative. As modern evangelicals we are often quick to make theological conclusions using only the second-half of our Bibles at great loss to our understanding of God's unchanging love and faithfulness throughout time.
April 3, 2025
Brief but thorough exposition of the paedobaptist position. While Wilson is very clear and fair in his articulation of the credobaptist arguments, this book doesn't engage with all of them (understandably, given that his primary purpose is to show the biblical support for his own position). I'm not a paedobaptist after reading this, as I found his arguments, while biblical and consistent, were still based on interpretive assumptions I did not share. A really helpful book to ensure the caricatures of the paedobaptist position are not treated as though they are the real thing.
May 17, 2024
decisive book for me on this issue.
August 26, 2020
My approach in this review will not be to offer a page-by-page assessment of every argument, but to address some general issues that deserve to be raised.
Often, DW offers undefended exegetical assertions in the place of close observance to the actual text. His appeal to 1 Cor 7:14, for example, while certainly a popular prooftext for infant inclusion in the CoG, is particularly unsatisfying. He takes the reference to the holiness of unbelieving spouse and child to be a covenantal holiness. Unfortunately for the curious reader, DW does not at all discuss the fact that not only children are included in the CoG on the basis of the faith of a parent—so is the unbelieving spouse. According to this view, if the mother in a pagan family of 3 is converted by the gospel, not only her children have a right to baptism, but the unbelieving husband does as well. It’s easy to ignore this fact and say that “it wouldn’t make sense” to baptize sometime that you would immediately have to excommunicate. But this misses the point, since the sacrament follows covenant inclusion—if holiness here means federal sanctification, there is no grounds on which an unbelieving husband of a believing wife could be refused baptism. And why shouldn’t he be? Is the stern “grace of discipline” not real for these apostate members as it would be for apostate teenagers who had been brought up in a Christian home?
While it does remove an often-repeated argument from the toolbelt of Reformed p/bs, we may say thankfully that Paul has nothing of this covenantal absurdity in mind when he speaks of the holiness of unbelieving spouses or children. The clear context is 1st century converts to the Christian religion who wonder, “Do I need to now put away my unbelieving spouse and unbelieving child, exactly as Israel had to do?”
”The people of Israel...have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, [etc]. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands...Therefore let us…put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law.” (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:3)
The Christians of the first century are in an analogous position to Israel after the exile—does the New Covenant view those outside the covenant, as the Canaanites, et. al. were outside and opposed to the Old Covenant, as illegitimate, and thus obligate the annulment and disowning of those relationships, as Israel was committed to do by law (Deut 7:2,3; Josh 23:12-13; 1 K 11:2)? I will allow a few Reformed orthodox to answer the question:
Camerarius: “The unbelieving husband hath been sanctified – that is, sanctified in the lawful use of marriage. For without this, the apostle says, the children would be unclean; that is, infamous, not being legitimate. Thus they are holy; that is, during the marriage, they are free from every spot of ignominy.”
Musculus: “I have sometimes abused the present place against the error of Anabaptists, keeping back infants of Christians from baptism…Yet the present place makes nothing to this cause, in which the sanctimony of the covenant and people is not meddled with, but the cleanness of lawful marriage, even of infidels: for not only to children, to whom perhaps the holiness of a believing parents may so appertain, but also to unbelieving husbands and wives is sanctimony ascribed, although they oppose the Christian faith.”
Likewise, DW’s appeal to the Olive Tree of Rom 11 is similarly unfruitful for his arguments. I will not enter here into a full-fledged exegetical examination of Rom 11, but the gist of the p/b argument is that Christ is the root of the tree, Jews were members of the tree through the Old Covenant and are removed, and that this possibility remains in the New Covenant. It is simply the application of a “one substance, two administrations” understanding of the CoG, which supports the further distinction between an outward administration and an inward administration (one can be a member of the CoG externally, but not achieve to its essence). However, what Paul is dealing with here specifically is the place of the natural descendants of Abraham (“Israelites, descendants of Abraham,” Rom 11:1, Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” Rom 9:3). The Olive Tree is one of the most common symbols in Scripture for the nation of Israel, Abraham’s physical offspring (Is 5; Jer 11:16–17; Luke 13:6–9). So first, it should be noted that, while it is not the Sunday School answer, the “root” of the Israel tree is not Jesus, but Abraham and the Patriarchs—as the federal head of the “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8), Abraham is consistently treated as the starting point of Israel (“Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you,” Is 51:2). So the question is, what happens to the Israel tree in the NC? What Paul is dealing with is the transition from the OC, Israel, the typical people of God, natural descendants of Abraham, to the NC, spiritual Israel, the antitypical people of God, the spiritual offspring of Abraham.
What is amazing is that a partial preterist can read nearly every NT text in light of AD70, but then ignore this reality in Rom 11. Paul is speaking here of the historical event of the culling of the tree of Israel. The axe is laid to the root of Israel according to the flesh. If a Jew wants to continue living on the Israel tree, he needs to remain “by faith.” Having Abraham as one’s physical father is the definition of growing naturally on the Olive Tree, symbolic of Israel, but Israel the shadow, the type, is dissolving before the reality, the anti-type. So this is not a perpetual description of what it means to be united to Christ—this is a particular event in the history of redemption when the NC is taking the place of the OC, and the slave woman is cast out. Thus, the natural children of believing Gentiles are nowhere included in the Olive Tree. And why would they? They have no relation to Abraham, as either his physical offspring, or his spiritual offspring by faith. They belong neither on the typical tree, nor the true tree of Israel.
As for the warning of vv. 20-22, this should not be understood as opening the door to participation in the CoG from which one can then fall away. Again, the historical moment is crucial. Paul is warning his readers that inclusion in true Israel depends on faith and faith alone, and for those who presume to live on the “Israel tree” as unbelieving Jews legitimately lived throughout the time of the typical existence of physical Israel, the same historical judgment is soon to fall on them that the Israelites are soon to experience. The only connection to true Israel is faith—the connection to typical Israel is about to be destroyed.
Paul speaks not to visible saints merely, who may or may not have the true possession of faith—he speaks to Gentiles added to the tree not by mere profession or appearance (much less by baptism), but by belief, by true faith (v. 20). This faith cannot be lost, so the warning cannot exist to introduce the uncertainty of one’s faith, but rather, to encourage the humility and faith by which those who are connected to the tree by faith need to persevere. Hear Calvin:
“The fear of which he speaks is set up as an antidote to proud contempt; for as every one claims for himself more than what is right, and becomes too secure and at length insolent towards others, we ought then so far to fear, that our heart may not swell with pride and elate itself.”
But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared. To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing from the certainty of faith.”
The exhortation is for the fostering of the faith which grafts one into the tree, which is, as Calvin asserts, certain. Paul nowhere refers to a wild branch that was once grafted into the Olive Tree but has now been cut off.
I will more briefly pass over what I consider to be the mishandling of a number of other texts (e.g. Acts 2, 1 Cor 10, Rom 4, and Heb 10), all of which are, in my opinion, misused for the purpose to which p/bs set them up. The promise of Acts 2 is simply a conditional promise of salvation first for the Jew (“you and your children”) then for the Gentile (“and all whom the Lord our God calls...”), dependent on faith. Heb. 10:29 refers to the sanctification, not of unbelieving apostates, but of the NC itself (gk. ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη), sanctified by “better blood.” 1 Cor 10 refers to Christ’s presence as historia salutis, not ordo salutis. In Rom 4, circ is a sign and seal to Abraham, as a confirmation of the blessings previously offered to him not a theological description of the nature of circ in itself (see Coxe, 134–137).
But turning from the exegetical to the theological, another argument I consider to be in error involves not baptism, but circumcision. In fact, at times, I think DW is more mistaken on the nature and function of circ than he is on baptism. DW’s basic understanding of circumcision, on the grounds of which he considers it a gospel ordinance of the CoG, is that circ referred to spiritual realities beyond itself. More to the point, circ signifies spiritual and covenantal association with Jesus Christ. For example, he says, “They circumcised their children into Christ” (33). “The sign of the covenant [circumcision]...signified the heart condition that would make the keeping of this external covenant possible. Simply stated, physical circumcision was given as a sign of Christ” (42). “[Circumcision was] on both of them [Jacob and Esau] a seal of the coming Christ, the coming Righteousness.” Etc.
Now all this is an unfortunate non sequitur. Of course circ pointed to spiritual realities, namely the need to be circumcised in heart. But the signification of the necessity for one to be regenerate in no way entails that regeneration is thereby offered. Of course Israel’s hearts had to be circumcised. The law was given to reveal this fact, and it was no secret. But the obvious truth is that the Old Covenant itself did not provide the means within itself to accomplish this necessity (2 Cor 3:7, all the Old Testament prophets, etc.). The administration of a sacramental condition—“this refers to the necessity of becoming circumcised in heart”—by no means implies the offer on the basis of that administration that the condition will be divinely secured. In short, the proclamation of a spiritual condition does not entail the proclamation of an unconditional blessing.
Circumcision pointed to the need for Israel’s perfection (the obligation to keep the whole law, Galatians 5:3), but did not of itself present the free gift of that perfect law-keeping in Christ. However, this is simply assumed by DW throughout the book, in order to make circ a gospel ordinance, instead of an ordinance of the law. From there, the features of the Old Testament ordinance can be ported into the New Testament gospel ordinance—believing and unbelieving Jewish children received the sign of Christ (goes the argument), so believing and unbelieving children of Christians should also receive the sign of Christ. Incidentally, this also has the reverse effect of not only “evangelizing” a “legal” ordinance, but “legalizing” a “gospel” ordinance. Thus baptism is not merely a grace-delivering sign of one’s union with Christ by the free gift of faith, but it is also an obligation, a requirement, an implicit preaching of a condition that baptism signifies—not I have died and risen with Christ, but I must die and rise with Christ.
The standard Reformed covenantalism presented in the book entails a number of other inconsistencies as well. Scripture teaches that humans are represented, ultimately, by one of only two federal heads. Either we are in Adam, or we are in Christ. There is no one who is represented federally by both at once, and all are represented. Those in Adam are under the original covenant of works, and law-breakers, condemned. Those who are in Christ are inheritors of the blessings found in him—regeneration, forgiveness of sins, eternal life, etc. Classic Reformed covenantalism says that all children of believers are “in Christ”—not necessarily as regards the substance of the covenant, but at least as regards the outward administration. However, the significant error of this position is that it posits that Jesus Christ federally represents those whom he does not save. He is the personal mediator of an eternal covenant on behalf of some who are in fact reprobate. It posits that there are those who do not have the Spirit of Christ that nevertheless “belong to him” (Rom 8:9). This is not an insignificant problem for Reformed p/bs, outweighed by other positive features like “Christian parenting,” etc. The CoG is no longer the temporal outworking of the eternal covenant within the Godhead to elect and save sinners—rather, in the CoG, Christ stands as mediator between God and some sinners who are never saved. Christ’s work as mediator of the CoG is thus reduced from actual, effectual securement of the blessings of the eternal Covenant of Redemption for the elect, to a representation before the Father on behalf of sinners who may or may not be saved from their sins. You cannot say that a child is “covenantally holy,” a true member of the CoG of which Christ is the mediator, and not abuse the mediatorial role of Christ by admitting that not every child of a believer is elect.
I see many more inconsistencies in this position, but suffice it to say, I was not convinced or swayed by the arguments in this book—I remain convinced that trad Reformed covenantalism raises many more serious issues than it can answer.
Throughout the book, I was very grateful I never felt like Pr. Wilson was dismissive of the baptist view or prideful or oversure of his p/b arguments (while obviously being convinced of them). In a few places he speaks improperly of “the baptist view” before describing a position that I, as a baptist, do not hold. But at any rate, he does not “lecture where ought to persuade,” as Barth spoke of Calvin on baptism. Though I was not persuaded, it’s obviously quite clear that DW’s goal is to convince through Scriptural arguments, and not through appeals to Reformed pedigree or historical-theological precedent alone.
Often, DW offers undefended exegetical assertions in the place of close observance to the actual text. His appeal to 1 Cor 7:14, for example, while certainly a popular prooftext for infant inclusion in the CoG, is particularly unsatisfying. He takes the reference to the holiness of unbelieving spouse and child to be a covenantal holiness. Unfortunately for the curious reader, DW does not at all discuss the fact that not only children are included in the CoG on the basis of the faith of a parent—so is the unbelieving spouse. According to this view, if the mother in a pagan family of 3 is converted by the gospel, not only her children have a right to baptism, but the unbelieving husband does as well. It’s easy to ignore this fact and say that “it wouldn’t make sense” to baptize sometime that you would immediately have to excommunicate. But this misses the point, since the sacrament follows covenant inclusion—if holiness here means federal sanctification, there is no grounds on which an unbelieving husband of a believing wife could be refused baptism. And why shouldn’t he be? Is the stern “grace of discipline” not real for these apostate members as it would be for apostate teenagers who had been brought up in a Christian home?
While it does remove an often-repeated argument from the toolbelt of Reformed p/bs, we may say thankfully that Paul has nothing of this covenantal absurdity in mind when he speaks of the holiness of unbelieving spouses or children. The clear context is 1st century converts to the Christian religion who wonder, “Do I need to now put away my unbelieving spouse and unbelieving child, exactly as Israel had to do?”
”The people of Israel...have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, [etc]. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands...Therefore let us…put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law.” (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:3)
The Christians of the first century are in an analogous position to Israel after the exile—does the New Covenant view those outside the covenant, as the Canaanites, et. al. were outside and opposed to the Old Covenant, as illegitimate, and thus obligate the annulment and disowning of those relationships, as Israel was committed to do by law (Deut 7:2,3; Josh 23:12-13; 1 K 11:2)? I will allow a few Reformed orthodox to answer the question:
Camerarius: “The unbelieving husband hath been sanctified – that is, sanctified in the lawful use of marriage. For without this, the apostle says, the children would be unclean; that is, infamous, not being legitimate. Thus they are holy; that is, during the marriage, they are free from every spot of ignominy.”
Musculus: “I have sometimes abused the present place against the error of Anabaptists, keeping back infants of Christians from baptism…Yet the present place makes nothing to this cause, in which the sanctimony of the covenant and people is not meddled with, but the cleanness of lawful marriage, even of infidels: for not only to children, to whom perhaps the holiness of a believing parents may so appertain, but also to unbelieving husbands and wives is sanctimony ascribed, although they oppose the Christian faith.”
Likewise, DW’s appeal to the Olive Tree of Rom 11 is similarly unfruitful for his arguments. I will not enter here into a full-fledged exegetical examination of Rom 11, but the gist of the p/b argument is that Christ is the root of the tree, Jews were members of the tree through the Old Covenant and are removed, and that this possibility remains in the New Covenant. It is simply the application of a “one substance, two administrations” understanding of the CoG, which supports the further distinction between an outward administration and an inward administration (one can be a member of the CoG externally, but not achieve to its essence). However, what Paul is dealing with here specifically is the place of the natural descendants of Abraham (“Israelites, descendants of Abraham,” Rom 11:1, Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” Rom 9:3). The Olive Tree is one of the most common symbols in Scripture for the nation of Israel, Abraham’s physical offspring (Is 5; Jer 11:16–17; Luke 13:6–9). So first, it should be noted that, while it is not the Sunday School answer, the “root” of the Israel tree is not Jesus, but Abraham and the Patriarchs—as the federal head of the “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8), Abraham is consistently treated as the starting point of Israel (“Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you,” Is 51:2). So the question is, what happens to the Israel tree in the NC? What Paul is dealing with is the transition from the OC, Israel, the typical people of God, natural descendants of Abraham, to the NC, spiritual Israel, the antitypical people of God, the spiritual offspring of Abraham.
What is amazing is that a partial preterist can read nearly every NT text in light of AD70, but then ignore this reality in Rom 11. Paul is speaking here of the historical event of the culling of the tree of Israel. The axe is laid to the root of Israel according to the flesh. If a Jew wants to continue living on the Israel tree, he needs to remain “by faith.” Having Abraham as one’s physical father is the definition of growing naturally on the Olive Tree, symbolic of Israel, but Israel the shadow, the type, is dissolving before the reality, the anti-type. So this is not a perpetual description of what it means to be united to Christ—this is a particular event in the history of redemption when the NC is taking the place of the OC, and the slave woman is cast out. Thus, the natural children of believing Gentiles are nowhere included in the Olive Tree. And why would they? They have no relation to Abraham, as either his physical offspring, or his spiritual offspring by faith. They belong neither on the typical tree, nor the true tree of Israel.
As for the warning of vv. 20-22, this should not be understood as opening the door to participation in the CoG from which one can then fall away. Again, the historical moment is crucial. Paul is warning his readers that inclusion in true Israel depends on faith and faith alone, and for those who presume to live on the “Israel tree” as unbelieving Jews legitimately lived throughout the time of the typical existence of physical Israel, the same historical judgment is soon to fall on them that the Israelites are soon to experience. The only connection to true Israel is faith—the connection to typical Israel is about to be destroyed.
Paul speaks not to visible saints merely, who may or may not have the true possession of faith—he speaks to Gentiles added to the tree not by mere profession or appearance (much less by baptism), but by belief, by true faith (v. 20). This faith cannot be lost, so the warning cannot exist to introduce the uncertainty of one’s faith, but rather, to encourage the humility and faith by which those who are connected to the tree by faith need to persevere. Hear Calvin:
“The fear of which he speaks is set up as an antidote to proud contempt; for as every one claims for himself more than what is right, and becomes too secure and at length insolent towards others, we ought then so far to fear, that our heart may not swell with pride and elate itself.”
But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared. To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing from the certainty of faith.”
The exhortation is for the fostering of the faith which grafts one into the tree, which is, as Calvin asserts, certain. Paul nowhere refers to a wild branch that was once grafted into the Olive Tree but has now been cut off.
I will more briefly pass over what I consider to be the mishandling of a number of other texts (e.g. Acts 2, 1 Cor 10, Rom 4, and Heb 10), all of which are, in my opinion, misused for the purpose to which p/bs set them up. The promise of Acts 2 is simply a conditional promise of salvation first for the Jew (“you and your children”) then for the Gentile (“and all whom the Lord our God calls...”), dependent on faith. Heb. 10:29 refers to the sanctification, not of unbelieving apostates, but of the NC itself (gk. ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη), sanctified by “better blood.” 1 Cor 10 refers to Christ’s presence as historia salutis, not ordo salutis. In Rom 4, circ is a sign and seal to Abraham, as a confirmation of the blessings previously offered to him not a theological description of the nature of circ in itself (see Coxe, 134–137).
But turning from the exegetical to the theological, another argument I consider to be in error involves not baptism, but circumcision. In fact, at times, I think DW is more mistaken on the nature and function of circ than he is on baptism. DW’s basic understanding of circumcision, on the grounds of which he considers it a gospel ordinance of the CoG, is that circ referred to spiritual realities beyond itself. More to the point, circ signifies spiritual and covenantal association with Jesus Christ. For example, he says, “They circumcised their children into Christ” (33). “The sign of the covenant [circumcision]...signified the heart condition that would make the keeping of this external covenant possible. Simply stated, physical circumcision was given as a sign of Christ” (42). “[Circumcision was] on both of them [Jacob and Esau] a seal of the coming Christ, the coming Righteousness.” Etc.
Now all this is an unfortunate non sequitur. Of course circ pointed to spiritual realities, namely the need to be circumcised in heart. But the signification of the necessity for one to be regenerate in no way entails that regeneration is thereby offered. Of course Israel’s hearts had to be circumcised. The law was given to reveal this fact, and it was no secret. But the obvious truth is that the Old Covenant itself did not provide the means within itself to accomplish this necessity (2 Cor 3:7, all the Old Testament prophets, etc.). The administration of a sacramental condition—“this refers to the necessity of becoming circumcised in heart”—by no means implies the offer on the basis of that administration that the condition will be divinely secured. In short, the proclamation of a spiritual condition does not entail the proclamation of an unconditional blessing.
Circumcision pointed to the need for Israel’s perfection (the obligation to keep the whole law, Galatians 5:3), but did not of itself present the free gift of that perfect law-keeping in Christ. However, this is simply assumed by DW throughout the book, in order to make circ a gospel ordinance, instead of an ordinance of the law. From there, the features of the Old Testament ordinance can be ported into the New Testament gospel ordinance—believing and unbelieving Jewish children received the sign of Christ (goes the argument), so believing and unbelieving children of Christians should also receive the sign of Christ. Incidentally, this also has the reverse effect of not only “evangelizing” a “legal” ordinance, but “legalizing” a “gospel” ordinance. Thus baptism is not merely a grace-delivering sign of one’s union with Christ by the free gift of faith, but it is also an obligation, a requirement, an implicit preaching of a condition that baptism signifies—not I have died and risen with Christ, but I must die and rise with Christ.
The standard Reformed covenantalism presented in the book entails a number of other inconsistencies as well. Scripture teaches that humans are represented, ultimately, by one of only two federal heads. Either we are in Adam, or we are in Christ. There is no one who is represented federally by both at once, and all are represented. Those in Adam are under the original covenant of works, and law-breakers, condemned. Those who are in Christ are inheritors of the blessings found in him—regeneration, forgiveness of sins, eternal life, etc. Classic Reformed covenantalism says that all children of believers are “in Christ”—not necessarily as regards the substance of the covenant, but at least as regards the outward administration. However, the significant error of this position is that it posits that Jesus Christ federally represents those whom he does not save. He is the personal mediator of an eternal covenant on behalf of some who are in fact reprobate. It posits that there are those who do not have the Spirit of Christ that nevertheless “belong to him” (Rom 8:9). This is not an insignificant problem for Reformed p/bs, outweighed by other positive features like “Christian parenting,” etc. The CoG is no longer the temporal outworking of the eternal covenant within the Godhead to elect and save sinners—rather, in the CoG, Christ stands as mediator between God and some sinners who are never saved. Christ’s work as mediator of the CoG is thus reduced from actual, effectual securement of the blessings of the eternal Covenant of Redemption for the elect, to a representation before the Father on behalf of sinners who may or may not be saved from their sins. You cannot say that a child is “covenantally holy,” a true member of the CoG of which Christ is the mediator, and not abuse the mediatorial role of Christ by admitting that not every child of a believer is elect.
I see many more inconsistencies in this position, but suffice it to say, I was not convinced or swayed by the arguments in this book—I remain convinced that trad Reformed covenantalism raises many more serious issues than it can answer.
Throughout the book, I was very grateful I never felt like Pr. Wilson was dismissive of the baptist view or prideful or oversure of his p/b arguments (while obviously being convinced of them). In a few places he speaks improperly of “the baptist view” before describing a position that I, as a baptist, do not hold. But at any rate, he does not “lecture where ought to persuade,” as Barth spoke of Calvin on baptism. Though I was not persuaded, it’s obviously quite clear that DW’s goal is to convince through Scriptural arguments, and not through appeals to Reformed pedigree or historical-theological precedent alone.
July 2, 2022
A book I was encouraged to read 9 years ago and finally did. I wish I had sooner. This book helped me to understand the nature of covenant better than most others have. Wilson does an excellent job of approaching this in a winsome manner that doesn't attack his Baptist brethren but draws them and affirms the best parts of their theology of baptism. My only drawback with this book, which I've noticed to be a theme with Wilson, is the near total lack of citing other authors. I don't mean plagiarism, I mean he draws zero attention to other thinkers in his camp who either formed him or who he respects enough to include in his arguments. With exception to this lone wolf feature of Wilson, his book has been very helpful to me and I encourage others to read it.
August 9, 2022
Whether you think you agree or disagree, just read it!
Before Doug even addresses baptism he lays out a thorough and solid biblical theology of covenants. His defense of paedobaptism is challenging and worth a study. I learned so much and will absolutely be re-reading it.
Before Doug even addresses baptism he lays out a thorough and solid biblical theology of covenants. His defense of paedobaptism is challenging and worth a study. I learned so much and will absolutely be re-reading it.
February 19, 2016
It wasn't until the fifth or sixth chapter that I really connected with Wilson's arguments. I usually like his writing, but I felt that some of the beginning chapters were a little over my head. Maybe if I went back and read them a second time they would make more sense. In the end, though, I think he makes a compelling case. One of the strongest arguments is that children in the OT are given the sign and seal of being members of God's covenant family, and the NT never revokes that command (though the sign changes)—so the "silence" of the NT is a strong case for infant baptism. Another interesting argument is that the biblical image of Christ as the vine and Christians as branches that bear fruit is a picture or the organic and covenantal (not individualistic) view of the people of God—so dead branches (covenant members who received the sign at birth) who bear no fruit are cut off, but it would be odd to expect individual branches (separated from the vine) to bear fruit first and then be grafted into the vine. Maybe that's stretching the metaphor too far . . . or maybe the Holy Spirit used specific metaphors for a reason. Of course, it's almost impossible to accept his arguments if you don't give any credence to covenant theology.
Review here.
Review here.
January 29, 2016
A very helpful, and quite concise, summary of the paedo-baptist position. Wilson, as usual, is poignant, humorous, winsome, with a great deal of Biblical wisdom to offer! For either side of the issue, this is well worth the read!
January 18, 2014
This is the go-to book if someone wants to understand the view of infant baptism or help explain the view to others.
April 29, 2024
Winsome and well written defence of infant baptism. I think I'm at least convinced not to be an immersion absolutist. The arguments for other ideas and conceptions of baptism in Scripture was well argued.
Doug assumes some arguments he has made elsewhere (Standing on the Promises) and acknowledges as much, but that does create a weakness in this book by itself. I'm still working on how I think through that part of the argument. Not convinced by the 1st Cor 7 arguing from status to symbol argument.
Off to read some Baptists I go.
Doug assumes some arguments he has made elsewhere (Standing on the Promises) and acknowledges as much, but that does create a weakness in this book by itself. I'm still working on how I think through that part of the argument. Not convinced by the 1st Cor 7 arguing from status to symbol argument.
Off to read some Baptists I go.
September 5, 2022
Just fantastic. You should read this to understand (and maybe even be convinced of) biblical covenantal paedobaptism. There are many supporting scriptures throughout, as is common with all of Doug's books, and the last chapter provides an excellent summary of the arguments presented.
May 25, 2023
A good exposition of the paedobaptist position.
His big selling point for this was his argument based on Paul’s continuance of the Jewish rites. While I found it good evidence, I didn’t think it would actually be a good apologetic against the credo position.
His big selling point for this was his argument based on Paul’s continuance of the Jewish rites. While I found it good evidence, I didn’t think it would actually be a good apologetic against the credo position.
June 23, 2022
"I'm gonna believe in infant baptism even harder. —Michael Scott" —Valerie Kyriosity
The only quibble I can think of is the insistence that "of the circumcision" always means "of the circumcision party" rather than sometimes being simply a euphemism for "Jewish," which seems a more natural reading to me in some places.
Read by the author. 👍
The only quibble I can think of is the insistence that "of the circumcision" always means "of the circumcision party" rather than sometimes being simply a euphemism for "Jewish," which seems a more natural reading to me in some places.
Read by the author. 👍
Read
August 3, 2023Read for a podcast with Matt. Might come back and review after we record.
August 14, 2022
This is excellent. Already looking forward to reading it again.
February 24, 2019
A thought-provoking case for infant baptism. A must-read for those in the ministry, as it helps to see the actual points of differences through many of the artificial ones. You can see what these are, and which side holds up best concerning them.
There are lots of things you wouldn't expect in a book on IB. You won't understand IB unless you have a biblical concept of parenting. You won't understand IB unless you have an understanding of the covenantal theology that's behind it, pulling its strings, so to speak. You won't understand IB until you understand how God works with trees. Lots of things will surprise the reader (if they are a novice like me).
One huge thing I didn't expect. Along the way, an argument was put forth that understands apostasy to be from the church community, not from salvation. E.g. anyone who is in the church community is in the new covenant, much like anyone who was considered an Israelite was in the old covenant, and they could apostasise from that position (1 Cor. 10). However, the credobaptist view is that the new covenant is exclusively made up of regenerated Christians of faith. But what do they make of apostasy? Either Arminianism is true, or a Calvinistic God also likes to parent His children with empty threats. I'm not convinced about either of those things and, strangely, Wilson's teachings around infant baptism has provided a third way for me to navigate through. In that vain, Wilson's arguments work really well on those who tend to think Calvinism is true, but have a bit of trouble thinking through the apostasy passages (I'm not sure how well they would work on an Arminian who has no issue with apostasy from salvation). Well, funnily enough, I am one of "those" reluctant or happily inconsistent Calvinists, and I've been left with lots to think about, which may help me stop being so reluctant and inconsistent in my soteriology. John MacArthur once preached a message on 'Why every Calvinist must be a Premillenialist.' I don't think he was very successful in his argument. However, Wilson could have titled this, Why every Calvinist must baptise their babies, and it would be true to *some* of the major arguments in this book. (Yes, only some, not all!)
There are still unanswered questions, and more research to do, before I can be fully persuaded from my credobaptist upbringing (yes, both sides have their traditions which eventually need to be supported from scripture), but at least I know what the questions are now. For that I have Wilson to thank. Next on my reading list is Scot McKnight's book, It Takes A Church.
There are lots of things you wouldn't expect in a book on IB. You won't understand IB unless you have a biblical concept of parenting. You won't understand IB unless you have an understanding of the covenantal theology that's behind it, pulling its strings, so to speak. You won't understand IB until you understand how God works with trees. Lots of things will surprise the reader (if they are a novice like me).
One huge thing I didn't expect. Along the way, an argument was put forth that understands apostasy to be from the church community, not from salvation. E.g. anyone who is in the church community is in the new covenant, much like anyone who was considered an Israelite was in the old covenant, and they could apostasise from that position (1 Cor. 10). However, the credobaptist view is that the new covenant is exclusively made up of regenerated Christians of faith. But what do they make of apostasy? Either Arminianism is true, or a Calvinistic God also likes to parent His children with empty threats. I'm not convinced about either of those things and, strangely, Wilson's teachings around infant baptism has provided a third way for me to navigate through. In that vain, Wilson's arguments work really well on those who tend to think Calvinism is true, but have a bit of trouble thinking through the apostasy passages (I'm not sure how well they would work on an Arminian who has no issue with apostasy from salvation). Well, funnily enough, I am one of "those" reluctant or happily inconsistent Calvinists, and I've been left with lots to think about, which may help me stop being so reluctant and inconsistent in my soteriology. John MacArthur once preached a message on 'Why every Calvinist must be a Premillenialist.' I don't think he was very successful in his argument. However, Wilson could have titled this, Why every Calvinist must baptise their babies, and it would be true to *some* of the major arguments in this book. (Yes, only some, not all!)
There are still unanswered questions, and more research to do, before I can be fully persuaded from my credobaptist upbringing (yes, both sides have their traditions which eventually need to be supported from scripture), but at least I know what the questions are now. For that I have Wilson to thank. Next on my reading list is Scot McKnight's book, It Takes A Church.
May 3, 2023
James White has pointed out among Roman Catholics what he calls “Peter syndrome.” Any reference to Peter in the New Testament, no matter how unassuming, is thought to be a proof text for the papacy. In the same way, I’m afraid Doug has succumbed to “children syndrome” whereby any mention of children in a positive light is automatically taken to teach their inclusion in the New Covenant.
At certain points—especially chapter 2–Doug seems to hold that all saved saints in the Old Testament were brought the benefits of the New Covenant retroactively (and I wholeheartedly agree). However, that admission—if taken to consistency—seems to undermine his argument from the continuity of covenant signs. But, he later makes it clear that he believes all of the covenants made with Israel were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I would like to ask him in what sense the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace when they don’t in and of themselves administer salvific grace. I’m sure this is not an oversight on his part, but he did not expressly answer the question here.
Overall, I thought this was a good attempt at justifying the practice. Wilson tried to base his conclusions on the exegesis of specific texts as well as an overarching framework of covenant theology. However, I think his exegesis and covenant theology are flawed. The strongest argument for infant baptism comes from the postmillennial, paedocommunion guys because of their unabashed consistency. At the exact same time, the argument from the postmil, paedocom guys ends up being exceptionally unconvincing because of where it leads them and what it does to the rest of the teaching of the New Testament.
At certain points—especially chapter 2–Doug seems to hold that all saved saints in the Old Testament were brought the benefits of the New Covenant retroactively (and I wholeheartedly agree). However, that admission—if taken to consistency—seems to undermine his argument from the continuity of covenant signs. But, he later makes it clear that he believes all of the covenants made with Israel were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I would like to ask him in what sense the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace when they don’t in and of themselves administer salvific grace. I’m sure this is not an oversight on his part, but he did not expressly answer the question here.
Overall, I thought this was a good attempt at justifying the practice. Wilson tried to base his conclusions on the exegesis of specific texts as well as an overarching framework of covenant theology. However, I think his exegesis and covenant theology are flawed. The strongest argument for infant baptism comes from the postmillennial, paedocommunion guys because of their unabashed consistency. At the exact same time, the argument from the postmil, paedocom guys ends up being exceptionally unconvincing because of where it leads them and what it does to the rest of the teaching of the New Testament.
August 20, 2015
Really, really good.
November 25, 2015
This could turn me. Feet planted firmly mid-air for now.
July 8, 2025
Excelente!
April 1, 2022
While Doug certainly makes great arguments in this book, there were a few major issues that made it fall flat in actually being a convincing case for infant baptism.
First, while Doug makes great *arguments*, many of his *premises* are unfounded and untested. There are many points were Doug simply assumes something that I didn't consider a given at all, and then never provides the proper grounding to actually prove those premises as being based in factual reality. So while there's plenty of fancy logical footwork, sand doesn't make a great dance floor.
Second, while Doug raises many great questions in the book from the baptistic perspective, questions that are key to understanding the debate, he consistently sidesteps them without actually dealing with them as the questions are actually phrased. This is classic strawmanning, and rather disappointing to see from Pastor Wilson.
Third, as I have waded through the paedobapist arguments, I have, time and time again, come across a simple but profound problem: almost none of the arguments actually relate to baptism at all. I found myself agreeing with many of the things Doug says, as he makes sound biblical argumentation at many points, but none of it actually stacks up against the clear evidence that baptism is for believer's only. It never truly kills the clear presentation of "repent and believe" throughout the New Testament. It just circles around it endlessly—and while I think the paedobaptists may see this as walking around the walls of Jericho, it more closely resembles wandering in the wilderness.
Lastly, as a connected point to the above, I have seen a *lot* of arguments for and extraploations of infant baptism over the past few years, and almost none of them are consistent with each other. Doug does an admirable job of insisting on biblical fidelity to the evangelical gospel of Jesus Christ, but the ramifications of this doctrine will always inevitably lead away from the gospel and into unknown theological roads that bare little resemblance to sound doctrine.
I love my paedobaptistic brothers, and I know many of them love the Lord. I admire their faithfulness to the Word and will gladly fight alongside them. But the closer I look at infant baptism, the more it seems like strange fire offered up to a holy God.
First, while Doug makes great *arguments*, many of his *premises* are unfounded and untested. There are many points were Doug simply assumes something that I didn't consider a given at all, and then never provides the proper grounding to actually prove those premises as being based in factual reality. So while there's plenty of fancy logical footwork, sand doesn't make a great dance floor.
Second, while Doug raises many great questions in the book from the baptistic perspective, questions that are key to understanding the debate, he consistently sidesteps them without actually dealing with them as the questions are actually phrased. This is classic strawmanning, and rather disappointing to see from Pastor Wilson.
Third, as I have waded through the paedobapist arguments, I have, time and time again, come across a simple but profound problem: almost none of the arguments actually relate to baptism at all. I found myself agreeing with many of the things Doug says, as he makes sound biblical argumentation at many points, but none of it actually stacks up against the clear evidence that baptism is for believer's only. It never truly kills the clear presentation of "repent and believe" throughout the New Testament. It just circles around it endlessly—and while I think the paedobaptists may see this as walking around the walls of Jericho, it more closely resembles wandering in the wilderness.
Lastly, as a connected point to the above, I have seen a *lot* of arguments for and extraploations of infant baptism over the past few years, and almost none of them are consistent with each other. Doug does an admirable job of insisting on biblical fidelity to the evangelical gospel of Jesus Christ, but the ramifications of this doctrine will always inevitably lead away from the gospel and into unknown theological roads that bare little resemblance to sound doctrine.
I love my paedobaptistic brothers, and I know many of them love the Lord. I admire their faithfulness to the Word and will gladly fight alongside them. But the closer I look at infant baptism, the more it seems like strange fire offered up to a holy God.
June 14, 2020
I continue to be thankful for the works of Douglas Wilson. This is one of those quick and easy reads that is really a primer on a much deeper issue. As my theological perspectives have developed through the years, I've been very hesitant to make any changes to it unless absolutely convinced. Sometimes this takes years. Other times, it just takes a conversation. The subject of baptism was a mixture of the two in my case. I gave the Baptist view the longest shake, and delved heavily into 20th century Reformed Baptist covenant Theology as well 1689 confessionalism. Eventually this lead to NCT and progressive covenantalism. I say all this, not because it is particularly interesting, but because it is particularly important to look back and see how I am being shaped by truths and increasingly narrowing my focus and moving towards points of accuracy and consistency.
On the fence between being Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian makes it a difficult world to be in, because in this theological Ven diagram, there are two separate circles and little overlap concerning covenant Theology. Wilson's book definitely didn't push me from one circle to the other - as I said, it's just a primer. But it did make me look back and see *why* I was moved from one circle to the other. His chapters are clear and easy to read, understanding the the conversation does not begin with baptism and communion, but it begins with the covenant. Our understanding of the covenant establishes our understanding of covenant members, which leads directly to what benefits the members receive.
Wilson isn't a scholar, and I don't mean that negatively, but he does take what scholars say and brings it to the laymen's level, which means most of us.
On the fence between being Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian makes it a difficult world to be in, because in this theological Ven diagram, there are two separate circles and little overlap concerning covenant Theology. Wilson's book definitely didn't push me from one circle to the other - as I said, it's just a primer. But it did make me look back and see *why* I was moved from one circle to the other. His chapters are clear and easy to read, understanding the the conversation does not begin with baptism and communion, but it begins with the covenant. Our understanding of the covenant establishes our understanding of covenant members, which leads directly to what benefits the members receive.
Wilson isn't a scholar, and I don't mean that negatively, but he does take what scholars say and brings it to the laymen's level, which means most of us.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 171 reviews