How Calvinistic is Infant Baptism?

[cajunhillbilly]

these questions are definitely not worded is such a way that a pedobaptist can answer them. There shold be one "It is okay to baptize the children of believers because of their covenatal relation to their parents"

 

[BenjaminRandall]

On the overall exegesis, I'm not so sure that we have in Romans a digest or diary of Paul's innermost struggles over the issue.

I think, instead, he is arguing his case before people who themselves are throwing such objections in his face.

It is his opponents who are makig claims like "Your gospel ends up teaching that we should sin all the more in order that we can experience more grace," and "Your gospel ends up teaching that God broke his covenant," and "How does your gospel explain the fact that so many of God's covenantal people have rejected your Messiah."

However, the difference between what you presented above probably doesn't negatively impact your overall thesis. But I did want to appropriately emphasize that much of Paul's discussion is in the context of polemics rather than some inward searching and internal discussion within his inmost thoughts.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

If I understand the argument correctly, Wmwall, it boils down to your final two paragraph:

Our understanding of baptism is that it is a sign of God's covenant with us. We do not see baptism as an outward expression of an inward faith, but instead as the exchange of covenant vows: We are baptized in water (our end of the covenant vow) and God baptizes us in the Holy Spirit (his end of the covenant vow). And the covenant we are a part of is the covenant God made with Abraham that through Jesus -- a physical descendant of Abraham -- all who are spiritual descendants of Abraham would be counted righteous.

So since we understand baptism as a sign of the covenant, and we also know that circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, you may be able to see why it's common for the Reformed to baptize their infants as a sign of the covenant, just as Jews circumcised their male children as a sign of the covenant.

If I can summarize this, your point seems to be that in some way circumcision is equivalent to baptism--since both were signs of the covenant. As such, since infants were circumcised, believing parents ought to likewise baptize their infants.

I'd like you to either affirm this or correct my misunderstanding before...uhm...I get my Baptist guns loaded!

Just kidding, though I'm sure you'll appreciate that I might have some reasons to disagree.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Cajunhillbilly writes,

There shold be one "It is okay to baptize the children of believers because of their covenatal relation to their parents"

Yes, I think if I were to re-write the poll, as I mentioned previously, I would qualify it to say something like, "Yes, it is okay to baptize unbelievers if they are the infants of believing parents.

But the question here is, ultimately, Is baptism a proper ordinance for someone who is not a believer?

How in the world does a Cajun get to be a hillbilly? I thought Hillbillies were people in eastern KY, WV, the westernmost part of VA, and southeastern OH?

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I grew up in West Virginia and my dad is from Louisiana. Hence cajunhillbilly.

 

[wnwall]

If I can summarize this, your point seems to be that in some way circumcision is equivalent to baptism--since both were signs of the covenant. As such, since infants were circumcised, believing parents ought to likewise baptize their infants.

I'd like you to either affirm this or correct my misunderstanding before...uhm...I get my Baptist guns loaded!

As far as I understand, yes, but you may want to get someone else to affirm before you get your guns out since, as I said, I am led to a credobaptist conclusion, so my understanding may not be all there.

And I agree that all throughout Romans, including here in chapter 9, we have examples of common objections people raise to Paul's teaching, but if you don't believe that what Paul's struggling with in Romans 9 is personal to Paul, you need to reread the beginning of the chapter.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Oh yes! Very personal to Paul.

 

[heymikey80]

If I can summarize this, your point seems to be that in some way circumcision is equivalent to baptism--since both were signs of the covenant. As such, since infants were circumcised, believing parents ought to likewise baptize their infants.

I'd like you to either affirm this or correct my misunderstanding before...uhm...I get my Baptist guns loaded!

Just kidding, though I'm sure you'll appreciate that I might have some reasons to disagree.

I'd push this just a little bit more specifically They're both signs of faith in particular, though I also consider them both signs of the covenant.

As both baptism and circumcision are signs of faith, a similar handling of both shouldn't seem unusual; and it wasn't in the Apostolic churches. An argument specifically about baptism being a sign of faith shouldn't carry any more weight against infant baptism than against infant circumcision.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

On the flip side of this, Paul uses the symbol of baptism to convey some pretty important theological points pertinent only to the believer: he is washed, he is raised, he professes his faith, he shares the new life with Christ, probably a few other items too.

Obviously, circumcision is incapable of pictorially conveying these things. Even when Paul contrasts circumcision to baptism in Colossians, he's obviously forcing circumcision into an interpretive matrix determined by baptism (stripping away of flesh = washing away sin).

Consequently, we can't say that the two are exactly the equivalent.

I think, moreover, the determining question for baptism for the earliest Christians was whether or not the person was a believer who makes his good confession before many witnesses, who signifies his death, burial, and resurrection with Christ in the watery grave, who depicts his forgiveness and washing away of sins while the living waters flow over him.

Not to mention the outpouring of the Spirit on him and his inclusion into the people of God.

By the way, I suppose that the Didache (about 70 A.D.) also teaches believers' baptism.

 

[heymikey80]

On the flip side of this, Paul uses the symbol of baptism to convey some pretty important theological points pertinent only to the believer: he is washed, he is raised, he professes his faith, he shares the new life with Christ, probably a few other items too.

He does the same with circumcision.

For an outward Jew isn't one, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But an inward Jew is one, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Rom 2:28-29

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh Pp 3:2-3
​

Obviously, circumcision is incapable of pictorially conveying these things. Even when Paul contrasts circumcision to baptism in Colossians, he's obviously forcing circumcision into an interpretive matrix determined by baptism (stripping away of flesh = washing away sin).

I don't see it as that obvious. Circumcision already is a purification rite, a separating of the flesh, which is what Paul stresses in Romans 8.

What's more, do pictures mean alot to you? How is getting dunked really pictorially like being buried? The two are pretty far apart. Only if this is a purification rite do the pictures close in on one another. And at that point they're two different purification rites, both emerging from OT practices.

Consequently, we can't say that the two are exactly the equivalent.

Hm, the equivalent of what? They're both purification rites. They're both signs of faith. What more correspondence do I need, again?

Why would God be unhappy with applying one sign of faith on an infant, when He commanded the other sign of faith on infants?

I think, moreover, the determining question for baptism for the earliest Christians was whether or not the person was a believer who makes his good confession before many witnesses, who signifies his death, burial, and resurrection with Christ in the watery grave, who depicts his forgiveness and washing away of sins while the living waters flow over him.

That's the thought of a Baptist, yes.

I think the determining question of the baptism of people who couldn't speak was the action itself signing the child to his God. Beyond that each and all of the needed pictures of baptism -- as if pictures were what God were about -- were in sprinkling (as the Didache permitted) or immersion, or even full submersion.

Not to mention the outpouring of the Spirit on him and his inclusion into the people of God.

As you know, the Spirit wasn't always poured out on people before baptism. And the infant's inclusion among the people of God is a given. The child of every believer is set apart to God.

By the way, I suppose that the Didache (about 70 A.D.) also teaches believers' baptism.

And so do infant baptists. But there's baptism for the minor children of believers as well.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjaminRandall
By the way, I suppose that the Didache (about 70 A.D.) also teaches believers' baptism.

and then HeyMikey wrote,

And so do infant baptists. But there's baptism for the minor children of believers as well.

I don't understand this comment.

It's been a few years since I read the Didache, but the sprinkling was a concession, not the preference.

Baptism as depicting death, burial, and resurrection is in fact a pretty good visual representation, plus there is biblical precedent for seeing it as such.

 

[heymikey80]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjaminRandall
By the way, I suppose that the Didache (about 70 A.D.) also teaches believers' baptism.

and then HeyMikey wrote,

I don't understand this comment.

It's been a few years since I read the Didache, but the sprinkling was a concession, not the preference.

If you've read the Didache baptism by sprinkling is a concession to the lack of flowing water, just as baptizing in salt water is a concession to the lack of fresh water.

Baptism as depicting death, burial, and resurrection is in fact a pretty good visual representation, plus there is biblical precedent for seeing it as such.

This is in reference to the Biblical precedent of Rom 6:1-4 ...

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in his death, we shall certainly be united with him in his resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. Rom 6:3-6

​

Baptism as a water purification ritual is more pervasive in biblical literature than the one verse illustrating the death of Christ. Plus -- interesting to me -- the whole idea of washing the body for burial, and then anointing the body for burial, both are illustrative of our union in the death of Christ as well.

And actually the double entendre of the word "baptism" in Greek metaphor and in physical rite serves this purpose somewhat better, to me. If you start off assuming submersion you'll find things alluding to it. If you don't, you find inconsistencies with immersion in the context. Paul's using multiple meanings in the words -- which he already has to assume to ask people, "Don't you know?" that baptism is a union with Christ's death in the first place. The submersion imagery is not even close to being lock-tight enough for Paul to assume people already know.

The metaphorical use is. "Baptize" as a metaphor of a radical death experience -- that's something Greek speakers already know.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

1. I don't deny that baptism is also a metaphor for purification. But it doesn't throw out the metaphor of death/burial/resurrection which is at the core of baptism as a metaphor in Rom 6.

2. I don't see how extra-biblical rituals of washing and anointing a corpse relates to Union with Christ, or that there is any theological reasons behind such burial rituals.

3. If baptism depicts either purificaton or union with Jesus' death/burial/resurrection, why is it applied to infants who have not been purified by the Spirit or united with Christ in his death/burial/resurrection? At most, it can only reflect the parents' faith, but it sure shouldn't depict the unbelieving infant's spiritual purification or nw birth!

Calvinistic covenantalism is way beyond my ken!

 

[heymikey80]

1. I don't deny that baptism is also a metaphor for purification. But it doesn't throw out the metaphor of death/burial/resurrection which is at the core of baptism as a metaphor in Rom 6.

I don't see a reason to clamp down on it as excluding nor completely preferred. It's not necessary.

2. I don't see how extra-biblical rituals of washing and anointing a corpse relates to Union with Christ, or that there is any theological reasons behind such burial rituals.

Nor are there any theological reasons behind the burial ritual of ... the burial image in water.

3. If baptism depicts either purificaton or union with Jesus' death/burial/resurrection, why is it applied to infants who have not been purified by the Spirit or united with Christ in his death/burial/resurrection? At most, it can only reflect the parents' faith, but it sure shouldn't depict the unbelieving infant's spiritual purification or nw birth!

Why not?

Gen 17:12 points out that the purification and union and faith sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was imposed on infants of eight days. Romans 4:11a,:12 says this was right, and actually reinforces this fact by restating it.

So why shouldn't this depiction be applied to infants?

There are plenty of examples of this. Say your parents sign a child up to a private school. Who gets the responsibility here? Why, the child is responsible. A hundred years ago a child was indentured or apprenticed under similar terms -- even when said child was nowhere near the point of handling adult-level training as silversmiths, printers, cobblers, etc. It's only been in the past century and a half that such practices have been rendered unconstitutional in the USA. That's not merely humanistic -- it's a patently modern concept.

In contrast God works through families. =shrug= He simply does. He actually appointed this covenant signature on the children of believers, and at the same time promised to be the God of the believers' descendants as well as believers themselves.