Dr. Wellum Interviewed About Baptism
 About a week ago Dr. Steve Wellum, professor of Christian theology at SBTS and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, was interviewed by the king of the bloggers Justin Taylor. The interview contains a helpful introduction and summary of the credobaptist and paedobaptist discussion. You guys have probably already seen this. If you haven't, it is worth a look.
I thought that one of the most important points that Wellum makes in this interview was his perspective on the theological category called the "Covenant of Grace". He saysÂ
In fact, I argued in my chapter that it would be best to place a moratorium on the category, especially if we want to make headway in the baptismal debate. In its place, we should speak of the one plan of God centered in Jesus Christ. And, furthermore, in speaking of the “covenant,†we must think in terms of the plurality of biblical covenants as we carefully unpack the relationships between the covenants across the canon. In short, it is imperative that we do a biblical theology of the covenants which, in truth, is an exercise in inter-textual relations between the covenants which, in the end, preserves a proper balance of continuity and discontinuity across the canon in regard to the biblical covenants. It is only when we do this that I am convinced we will make headway in our debate over the relationship between the biblical covenants without prejudicing the debate in one direction or the other.
Any critiques of this view or anything else he said in the interview?
He states M A N Y glorious truths in this interview. However, I want to focus mostly on my disagreements [and it might be good to take my tone as a tad “playful†at times:)]
He states: “In truth, ‘the covenant of grace’ is really a comprehensive theological category, not a biblical one. This does not mean it is illegitimate. After all, theological terms are often used in theology, which are not necessarily biblical terms—e.g., Trinity.”
True, but there is exegetical evidence for the Trinity. There is no exegetical evidence for a “covenant of grace†in the first place. Even though Gen. 3:15 does not explicitly state “gospelâ€, you can exegete the gospel in a nutshell out of that prophesy, not any first revealed covenant [even if you bring in the “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck†criteria].
And then what happens is that you bring in extra biblical covenants into your theology that get more emphasized than the covenants the Bible does give.
I have “The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary†right here with me. Chapter 6 is entitled “The Covenant of Life or Worksâ€, chapter 7 is “the Covenant of Graceâ€, and chapter 8 is “The Mediator of the Covenant of Graceâ€. Do you know how many chapter titles have the covenants that the Bible emphasizes [new covenant and old covenant] contained in them?
Zero
He says “I have no problem in using the category ‘the covenant of grace’ to underscore the unity of God’s plan of salvation and the essential spiritual unity of the people of God in all ages.â€
Why do we need it in the first place? To equate God’s “plan†and believer “unity†with a “covenant†you can’t exegete out of the Bible in the first place is unnecessarily confusing. Why can’t we stick with Bible terms like “purpose†and “electionâ€
However, here is where he is a bit interesting in his own theology because he does seem to mean “covenant†when he speaks of the new covenant or old covenant. And if he is, then he is departing from basic covenant theology.
He says “I argued in my chapter that it would be best to place a moratorium on the category, especially if we want to make headway in the baptismal debate.†Amen. There is no covenant revealed in Gen. 3:15.
He says “we must think in terms of the plurality of biblical covenants†Exactly. There is no covenant that turns “Bible†covenants into administrations for the sake of keeping that “one†covenant of grace.
He says “The new sign of the new covenant is that of baptism.†Ahem, chapter and verse please:)
He says Baptism “is a sign that signifies a believer’s union with Christ…†I definitely see that in the Bible.
If we are going to take “this is my body†to mean “this signifies my body†then how can we not take “this is the new covenant†[the cup] to not mean “this SIGNifies the new covenant�
The sign of these covenants are so clear. Abrahamic covenant—circumcision [Gen 17:11], Old Covenant—Sabbath [Ex. 31:13, 16-17], New covenant—the cup [1 Cor. 11:25]
He says “Yes, baptism is analogous to circumcision in that it is an initiatory rite†I don’t really see this. How can circumcision be an initiatory rite when to not be circumcised meant you would be cut off from the people because that was a breaking of it? I think you have to belong to a covenant first in order to be able to break it. The infant was PHYSICALLY born into the covenant it seems to me.
The only Bible verse that I can think of to try and say that Baptism is an initiatory rite would be 1 Cor. 12:13 which I take to not be water baptism, but Holy Spirit baptism [no, I’m not pentecostal:)].
Acts 3:41 simply indicates Belief first, baptism second, and “then†addition to the church third—nothing that necessarily indicates initiation. If I am wrong, then please [anyone] exegete that out for me.
In short, I think he rightly sees the Abrahamic covenant, old covenant, and new covenant as covenants, not administrations. No need to add a covenant of grace. The cup is the sign of the NC, not baptism. I think physical birth was the initiation, not circumcision for Israelites and I think baptism is not an initiation, but should come first before being added to the local church.
In my last paragraph I should have said “In short, I think he rightly sees the old covenant and new covenant as covenants, not administrations.” [leaving out the Abrahamic Covenant]