infant baptism in covenant - Reformed Churches

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
This is meant to be a frindly thread please ;) I have posted this question before - but with little response - so am posting again. Hope nobody minds.

 

Anyway - I am aware that many (if not most) Reformed Chruches follow covenant theology in baptism, including the seed of believing parents - mine included. However, there are some, particularly Reformed Baptists, that do not include infants in baptism because they do not feel it is the outward sign. (Am I corect?)

 

Now - like I said, I want no big debate - just a discussion on the sides of each view. Of course I want Reformed and/or Protestant Christians to respond as I am well aware of the thoughts of many other denominations (ie Southern Baptist ). And since Catholic Baptism is completely different  - There is no need to post in defence of that please. Just Reformed and or Protestant please. (You need not be a Calvinist to respond though....;) )

 

You see - I hate to see seperation over this issue, but feel it is important to know why other people believe the way they do - in many theological areas - not just this.  I love covenant theology though - and like to listen to those discuss their views on this subject. I do not believe baptism saves anyone - Im sure most of you would agree. I believe it to be a sign and seal of the New Covenant. Yes, my children are baptised.

I would like to get the views and defence of everyones Reformed and/or protestant stance.

 

Am I making sense? I guess my question is, who supports infant baptism in covenant theology and why and vice versa.

 

In Christ,

Victroia

HTD
 

HesMyAll

Senior Contributor
Nov 4, 2002
8,804
2,142
67
Ohio
✟18,278.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I can only go by what the Bible says and I have never seen an instance in the Bible where an infant was baptized.  Baptism is the answer of a clear conscience toward God.  An infant cannot recognize sinfullness and is not able to repent.  In the Bible, repentance always precedes baptism.  And you are right, baptism does not save any one.  It is a public testimony of an inward change.
 
Upvote 0

Gabriel

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found
Oct 10, 2002
2,923
107
54
FL
Visit site
✟19,059.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the covenantal view, baptism serves the same purpose for New Testament believers that circumcision did for Old Testament believers. For the Jews, circumcision was the external and visible sign that they were within the covenant that God had established with Abraham. Converts to Judaism (or proselytes) also had to undergo this rite. But now under the new covenant, baptism instead of circumcision is required.
Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995.

I agree with this presentation of my belief. We baptize infants as a sign that they are part of a covenant family. This does not save them or wash away any sin. It is also the seal of an oath that we as christian parents and our congregation take to raise and love the child as a member of God's family. Teaching the child about God's law, grace and love. Once a person has made a profession of faith, another baptism is not required if they were baptized as an infant. However, if the person has never been baptized, we encourage them to do so at the time of public profession. Additionally, my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America) recognizes and accepts baptisms from all other Christian denoms (Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) as valid. We do not accept baptism from non-Christian denoms (Mormon, Unitarian, JW)

As a former Baptist I can speak for their view on what is called believers only baptism. this belief is based solely upon a handful of scripture. One of them being the conversation between Phillip and the eunuch in Acts 8. See the following:

Acts 8: 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Because Phillip states, "If you believe...." Baptists say that an unbeliever must not be baptized. However, the eunuch was not an infant or a child. He should not be baptized unless he believes, in this I agree. No ADULT should be. But baptism of a child, as the sign and seal of the covenant, is a different story.
 
Upvote 0

Gabriel

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found
Oct 10, 2002
2,923
107
54
FL
Visit site
✟19,059.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would like to add this instance: Due to a believing parent, her whole household is baptized. Should we just assume that there are no children presnt? If there were no children present wouldn't the author just say her and her husband? Let's see:

14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟13,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
As an Evangelical Christian I cannot accept the popular idea of infant baptism since it is thoroughly unscriptural, unless you apriori read it into scripture because of ecclesiastical conditioning.

Such practices have more to do with eisegesis (reading into scripture either what we think it should say or, as is more often the case, what we would like it to say) rather than sound Biblical exegesis (reading from scripture what it actually does say) instead of attempting to fabricate a theology based on arguments from silence (which is a favourite practice of the Roman Church - amongst others) and by which means we can justify anything.

As for the belief that baptism does not save us I sometimes wonder which Bible some Christians are reading (Titus (what a shame this system can't tell the difference between a profanity and an abbreviated Biblical reference) 3:5; 1Pet.3:21). Again, I believe this to be symptomatic of ecclesiastical conditioning in the grossly oversimplifying of the gospel and the reducing of it to it's absolute bare minimum as far as requirements and incumbencies are concerned so much so that we now teach that salvation is by "faith alone" ("sola fide"). What started off as a Protestant Reformational rallying cry against the over-emphasis of the Roman Church on "works" has now become the litmus test for supposedly "authentic" Evangelical Christianity whereas in actual fact it has become an abberational heresy of the true Christian gospel by dint of the fact that it has thouroughly purged the gospel of any aspect of human action or "works" (and all this in spite of the fact that James emphatically teaches that "faith without works is dead" (Jas.2:14-26)) reducing it in the majority of cases to nothing more than giving mental assent to a set of theological propositional statements. The sad part being that because of this many people are misguidedly hoping that by merely giving such mental assent (having been taught that salvation is "by faith alone") they are hoping to secure for themselves a place in the age to come?!

The Bible actually teaches that the sacraments are not merely symbolic ("an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" - the usual understanding of a sacrament which comes to us through the Roman Church. Such an understanding is actually based on the Greco-Roman understanding of spirituality which is worlds apart from the Biblical Judeo-Christian understanding of spirituality that is thoroughly Hebrew in it's origins) but instrumental ("a physical act with a spiritual effect" - a Hebrew understanding of a sacrament) in other words, baptism is not like a bath, it is a bath (Titus.3:5(b)), it is not like a burial, it is a burial (Rom.6:1-14).

Therefore, baptism does actually save us (as the scriptures declare) not in an of itself (I utterly repudiate the magical concept of ex opere operato which superstitious people believe (i.e. that baptism, in and of itself, has some magical propensity inherent within it to "save" anyone who undergoes such a rite irrespective of age or moral standing before God). since such an understanding, though widespread, is wholely unscriptural) but as part of an initiation process into the Body of Christ. 

I do most certainly believe that when baptism is taken in conjunction with repentence from works (lifestyle) that leads to death, belief (trust - not mental assent) in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and reception of the Holy Spirit in order to enable the believer to live the Christian life in dynamic spiritual power, then (and only then) is it true that baptism (as a part of the whole initiation package) actually saves us.

I also do not believe that a believer must undergo all four parts of the initiation process in order to be "saved" since it is clear from scripture that there were some individuals who, for whatever reason, were not able to undergo all four parts (the thief on the cross for example) but I do believe that if as believers we have the oportunity to undergo all four parts and for whatever reason refuse to do so then we will eventually be called to account for our wilful disobedience (Matt.28:19,20; 1Pet.4:17; 2Cor.5:10; Heb.10:31).

For further reading see; The Normal Christian Birth by Rev. David Pawson, published in the UK by Hodder and Stoughton and available online from: www.anchor-recordings.com/ or offline from your local Christian Bookstore or public lending library. 

Simonline.   
 
Upvote 0

Gabriel

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found
Oct 10, 2002
2,923
107
54
FL
Visit site
✟19,059.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SBfaithful

Active Member
Mar 11, 2003
256
2
48
Houston
Visit site
✟393.00
Faith
Baptist
Today at 03:30 AM Philip said this in Post #10

This is a question for any Reformed Baptists out there. Here is my understanding of the Reformed Baptist position. If I am wrong in my understanding, please correct me.

RBs believe that the only people who should be baptized are those who are part of the covenant. Since the New Covenant is unbreakable (Jer 31:31-34) and infants may apostatize after they are grown, infants should not be baptized. Since it can not be determined beforehand whether or not the infant is elect, they should not be given the sign of the covenant.

Now comes my question: How does one determine if a professing adult is elect? Do not some professing adults, after receiving the sign of the covenant, apostatize? How are these people any different than infants?
Because the adult made the decision. The adult practiced to decieve. The infant on the other hand made no decision. Baptism is a profession of faith for an individual to let the world know they are saved. Baptism is a special event and should not be a decision made by the parents. Tell me where in the Bible this view holds any water? No where in the Bible does it say that an infant should be baptized. I know it has passages that reflect a parents responsibility for their children, but does this include baptism? I am not trying to attack infant baptism, just curious as to why it is necessary :)
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
RBs believe that the only people who should be baptized are those who are part of the covenant. Since the New Covenant is unbreakable (Jer 31:31-34) and infants may apostatize after they are grown, infants should not be baptized. Since it can not be determined beforehand whether or not the infant is elect, they should not be given the sign of the covenant. Now comes my question: How does one determine if a professing adult is elect? Do not some professing adults, after receiving the sign of the covenant, apostatize? How are these people any different than infants?

However, adults who profess faith are not always saved - and can fall away also. Therefore - we know not who is saved and who is not. So, I second your question.
 
Upvote 0

SBfaithful

Active Member
Mar 11, 2003
256
2
48
Houston
Visit site
✟393.00
Faith
Baptist
Today at 03:56 AM Philip said this in Post #12



Not necessarily. They may very well thought they believed. Even if they did mean to deceive, how is that they were given the sign of an unbreakable covenant?



And no Baptist child has ever been baptized to please their parents?



Where does it say they shouldn't?




I have not stated that it is necessary. However, I have claimed that it is permissible, and even good. Can this be refuted?
If they meant to decieve then there really never was a covenant. If they thought they believed, does that make a covenant? It is not an outsiders job to determine if one truly believes. That is between them and God.

If a child is baptized to please the parent, then they are baptized for the wrong reason. It is funny you mention this because that is what I feel infant baptism is for. The child makes their profession of faith without even knowing what is going on.


http://wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns209.html
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
If a child is baptized to please the parent, then they are baptized for the wrong reason. It is funny you mention this because that is what I feel infant baptism is for. The child makes their profession of faith without even knowing what is going on.

I guess that is the difference. You see, the child is NOT making a profession of faith - for we do not see it that way. At least I don't. Every covenent in the Bible included the seed (Noahic, Abramic, Mosaic, Adamic etc...) Why would the New Covenant be any different. God did not stipulate a change in His covenant making.

In the Reformed stance (excluding Baptists) baptism is a sign and seal of the new covenant, not a mere confession of faith. Baptism does not save, but is a sign of the covenant.


Hopefully I am making sense.

 

 I would also add that the site you posted is a tad misleading. A quote can not justify an entire denomonation. For Instance, I would say the Reformed could easily be tied in to the Presby view on that site, However - the site states that Presby's  belive regeneration happens at time of baptism - that is not a presy view at all - but more Lutheran (although not mentioned) - and defiantely Catholic (which, BTW, I disagree with)  I would not go by that site as the views are twisted a tad.

 also think it is funny how those opposed to Infant baptism state that those who practice it stand on assumptions in the Bible - yet this sites says regarding the Lydia household baptism:
Nothing is said about infants in this passage, and it is highly unlikely that this busy merchant woman would have had tiny babies.

that is a bit of an assumption also.

Anyway - thaks for your post though - I like hearing and reading others views.

In Christ,
Victoria
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HesMyAll

Senior Contributor
Nov 4, 2002
8,804
2,142
67
Ohio
✟18,278.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Gabriel said:
I would like to add this instance: Due to a believing parent, her whole household is baptized. Should we just assume that there are no children presnt? If there were no children present wouldn't the author just say her and her husband? Let's see:

14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

Maybe her children were all grown to the age of accountability. Just because it says her household does not mean there were any infants in it. I have a household but I don't have any babies here. I have a husband and two daughters living at home, surely that qualifies as a household.
 
Upvote 0

Magisterium

Praying and Thinking
Jan 22, 2003
1,136
99
47
Kansas
Visit site
✟1,813.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
OK, first of all, many people don;t know this, but the debate over when to baptize goes back to the earliest days of the church. Of course at that time, the argument was whether to do it at birth or 8 days.

In order to get to the bottom of this, we must begin at the beginning. Genesis 17:9-14 gives the instructions for circumcision.
9 Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised.
11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:
13 And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant.


Circumcision is later replaced by baptism as entry into the covenant. (as we learn in Col 2:11-12)
11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ.
12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him up from the dead


Then we have the important statement in Luke 2:23
23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord "Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord"

Oddly enough, the apostles semed to think that children were unable to properly discern Jesus as well. But Jesus cleared that up in Mt 19:13-14

13 Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.


Then in John 15:16, our Lord explains that it is not we who choose him, but he who chose us!
16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Additionally, in Acts 2:38-39 we see Peter explain the promise of salvation...
38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.


Above and beyond the bombardment of scripture, Baptism is nothing short of entry into the the new Covenant of salvation. It is stated time and again throught the new testament that this a free gift which cannot be gained through some merit. Being of a certain age of reason is not necessary before God can bestow the graces of baptism upon an individual. As our Lord said in Jn 15:16 "it was not you who chose Me, but I have chosen you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
After making of repentance comes baptism and after making of repentance when man has confess his sins comes forgiveness of sins. After that man can receive the gift of the righteousness, which is Jesus Christ.



Peter declared in Acts chapter 2, that the same promise had been given also to the child and all, who will hear the gospel. What was that promise?



Promise belongs": Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call



To the promises belong first the repentance and after that comes baptism. From the making of the repentance follows baptism. And from the making of the repentance follows receiving Holy Spirit and after repentance comes forgiveness of the sins.



Promise didn’t mean to baptized the babies, but promises was that after repentance man shall receive forgiveness of the sins and Holy Spirit. Also Jesus said in the gospel: “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”



Also the children can follow order of the gospel, what is making of the repentance and from the making of the repentance follows receiving Holy Spirit and after repentance comes forgiveness of the sins. Also after the repentance follows baptism in the name of the Jesus Christ.



Lutheran church, catholic church and orthodox church teach against the word of God, because they teach that in baptism can have forgiveness of the sins and Holy Spirit and in the baptism man comes child of God. Bible teach that man comes child of a God through faith in Jesus and Holy Spirit shall given to man through faith in Jesus and forgiveness of the sins comes to man through faith in Jesus.

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/Baptism in the Bible
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.