How does Infant Baptism fit in with Reformed Theology's View of Salvation?

[Bro. Gabriel]

I'm not sure I understand how people who believe in the doctrines of Grace as related to Salvation can also believe in Infant Baptism, a Catholic-rooted practice that avoids allowing God's providence and choice in Salvation. Or, is there a different view about Infant Baptism in the Reformed tradition? Can someone help me clear this up?

 

[jazzbird]

We don't believe baptism saves, rather it is a covenental sign, much like circumsicion in the OT. I suppose it is similar to baby consecration/dedication in other protestant churches.

Others probably have more insight to give you. Until the last year I attended a Baptist church for most of my life, so I am rather new to the whole infant baptism thing.

 

[Bro. Gabriel]

See, we have Parent/Baby Dedication services in our churches (SBC), but there's no Baptism involved. Just a covenant read aloud by the parents and the church/pastor for the sake of the babies that they would be raised properly, etc. I just don't see why Baptism, which was set apart for a specific purpose, should be mixed in with this service.

 

[Bulldog]

In Reformed doctrine, infant baptism is the seal of the covenant (like circumcision in the OT), but it doesn;t really have much to do with salvation. Unlike some, we do not believe that infant baptism regenerates.

 

[BBAS 64]

In Reformed doctrine, infant baptism is the seal of the covenant (like circumcision in the OT), but it doesn;t really have much to do with salvation. Unlike some, we do not believe that infant baptism regenerates.

Good Day, Bulldog

What are the requirements of the one whom "infant" is Baptized?

For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

 

[Bulldog]

What are the requirements of the one whom "infant" is Baptized?

That they have faith.

If you'll remember the story of Lidia (sp?) in Acts, here faith was enough to baptise her whole household.

 

[Foundthelight]

What are the requirements of the one whom "infant" is Baptized?

For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

Infant baptism is a sign of the Covenant. At least one parent must be a confessing Christian. This is based on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

1Co 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

1Co 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Most pastors will not baptise the children of an unbelieving couple due to this command from Paul. If this seems harsh, remember that salvation comes from faith in Christ, not from the ritual of baptism. The children of unbelievers will be made holy when they come to faith in Christ and are themselves justified before God.

 

[Bro. Gabriel]

So I guess I still fail to see the point of the Baptism. What does it "do"? What is it "for"?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So I guess I still fail to see the point of the Baptism. What does it "do"? What is it "for"?

you've put your finger on the issues.

for most people who baptise adults only, baptism represents a visible entry point, a critical rite of passage into the church.
look at the current baptists.

for most people who baptise children of believers it represents the continuing covenant of God, to you and your children.
look at current reformed.

for most people who baptise anyone's children it represents a sign of grace either hopedfor or imparted by the action/priesthood and entry into a visible church based on a parish ideal.
look at RC and lesser extent high church lutherans or anglicans.

 

[Bro. Gabriel]

I guess 21 years in the SBC church will alter your ability to interpret it differently.

 

[theseed]

Like you Bro. Gabriel, I'm baptist, and affiliated with the SBC too

They think that it is related to circumision of Abraham, and so is paralell. But they err, because it is only related to the Circumicision of Christ. (Col. 2.12).

Here is article from the founders site that refutes 9 different arguments for infant baptism--and not including salvation because Calvinism is assumed.

It's a long one though.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

 

[theseed]

Therefore, both context and word study suggest that hagia (holy) refers to the legitimacy or sanctioning of the marriage and of the children rather than, necessarily, to the covenant promises of salvation and sanctification. Also, how old are the children of this legitimized marriage? Are they infants, teenagers, or adults? If this opens the way to covenant baptism, should all the children still living at home be considered hagia (holy) and baptized in the covenant relationship, even if adolescents or adults? Certainly not, according to the rest of Scripture on confessors' baptism. Any arbitrary attempts to define ages of accountability in order to limit baptism to minor children in this household also encounter problems. Esau was circumcised at age twelve, and Israelites up to age forty were circumcised by Joshua (Joshua 6). Neither one of these situations required a good confession before circumcision. If 1 Cor. 7:14 prescribes baptism of "holy" children simply because of their physical descent, then even adult children should be included. In light of these difficulties, it is better to understand this passage as speaking of the children's legitimacy before God.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html