Infant Baptism

[DD2008]

The sovereignty of God is basic and I'm fully on board - 5 points all the way. I'd say the LBC 1689 is my personal confession - there's nothing that I disagree with, although there are some terms which I think need explanation.

But whether there is one or two wills in God, whether he has emotions, or whether infant baptism is clearly taught in scripture, I think these matters are not forever settled in the Reformed community and should be open to good hearty discussion and debate. That's all I really set out to do in the forum, as I saw it done by many others, who are much more vocal and harsh than I ever was (least I'd like to think so!).

I don't think any of these issues steps on the toes of any Reformed confessions, does it?

As for my church.. yeah, not a theologically-based church, unfortunately. i could pore over hundreds of pages of dry systematic theology texts on my own I suppose, but the personal interaction is much more stimulating.

So, you go to a presbyterian church but your actually a baptist at heart?

 

[HiredGoon]

I think this article by R. Scott Clark addresses some of the questions raised in this thread.

Baptism and the Benefits of Christ : The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace

 

[Judson]

So, you go to a presbyterian church but your actually a baptist at heart?

Basically, yes, hence the numerous questions and struggles about paedobaptism. I was not required to confess the WCF for membership (again, not a confessional church).

 

[DD2008]

Basically, yes, hence the numerous questions and struggles about paedobaptism. I was not required to confess the WCF for membership (again, not a confessional church).

Check out the article that the Hiredgoon posted. That's a good one.

 

[Judson]

I listened to the mp3 version on monergism just yesterday. it was helpful.

What I got out of it is that baptism is an illustration or picture of the gospel. It signifies and seals what is promised IF and the person believes, and has no immediate connection with the person being baptized, nor does it indicate anything about his final salvation.

But I wonder whether this is what we find in scripture. Does the NT really distinguish the outward sign from the inward reality, or, those who are saved from those who have been baptized? it seems to me that they are all viewed as inseparable.

Another question i have is: is baptism done so that Christians can reckon one another in the covenant, or is it done so that God reckons people in the covenant? In other words, is baptism performed for our sake or God's sake?

If it is God who reckons people in the covenant through baptism, but they end up not being elect, then what does this say about covenant membership? It becomes nothing more than a word with no efficacy.

I find this quote from Clark perplexing:

First , as closely as
Paul relates the sign to the thing signifi ed in this passage,
he nowhere says that baptism unites the baptized
to Christ . The function of Paul’s appeal to baptism is not
to teach that baptism does anything per se. Rather, he
appeals to baptism as an illustration, or a sign of what
was already true of them.

What does this mean? If baptism is a sign of what is already true of them, then every baptized person is already fully in the covenant and will be elect? I think what Clark means is not that it is ALREADY true of them, but MAY BECOME true IF they believe.

I understand the desire to safeguard against sacramental theology and baptismal regeneration, but where do we find in scripture people being baptized as merely a rite of initiation disconnected from their own salvation, and not an outward sign of an inward reality? Was it not assumed that those who were baptized are saved?

 

[DD2008]

I listened to the mp3 version on monergism just yesterday. it was helpful.

What I got out of it is that baptism is an illustration or picture of the gospel. It signifies and seals what is promised IF and the person believes, and has no immediate connection with the person being baptized, nor does it indicate anything about his final salvation.

But I wonder whether this is what we find in scripture. Does the NT really distinguish the outward sign from the inward reality, or, those who are saved from those who have been baptized? it seems to me that they are all viewed as inseparable.

Another question i have is: is baptism done so that Christians can reckon one another in the covenant, or is it done so that God reckons people in the covenant? In other words, is baptism performed for our sake or God's sake?

If it is God who reckons people in the covenant through baptism, but they end up not being elect, then what does this say about covenant membership? It becomes nothing more than a word with no efficacy.

I find this quote from Clark perplexing:


What does this mean? If baptism is a sign of what is already true of them, then every baptized person is already fully in the covenant and will be elect? I think what Clark means is not that it is ALREADY true of them, but MAY BECOME true IF they believe.

I understand the desire to safeguard against sacramental theology and baptismal regeneration, but where do we find in scripture people being baptized as merely a rite of initiation disconnected from their own salvation, and not an outward sign of an inward reality? Was it not assumed that those who were baptized are saved?

Baptism is done because God commands it. Regarding infants, it is not done with the understanding that those who are baptized are already saved. It is done with the hope that those who are baptized will be saved. It is an expression of our desire for God to save our loved ones and is an act of obedience to the Lord. Regarding the recently converted who have never been baptized it is an outward sign of an apparent inward reality. HOwever, that person should now get his children baptized in an act of obedience and display of desire to have God save his children as well. Basically.

 

[Judson]

Baptism is done because God commands it. Regarding infants, it is not done with the understanding that those who are baptized are already saved. It is done with the hope that those who are baptized will be saved. It is an expression of our desire for God to save our loved ones and is an act of obedience to the Lord. Regarding the recently converted who have never been baptized it is an outward sign of an apparent inward reality. HOwever, that person should now get his children baptized in an act of obedience and display of desire to have God save his children as well. Basically.

True baptism is commanded. The baptism of infants, however, not so clear, at least to me. There are certainly no explicit commands to baptize infants anywhere in scripture.

I'm also not convinced that it is done in the hope of future regeneration. The confession seems on the surface to suggest that it is a signifier of something already occurring, and a guarantee (seal) of something to come. Baptism is not a symbol for God to do something, but a sign of what has been done to us through faith. It has everything to do with salvation. If it is true that it is a promise that God is a God of families, then it is unthinkable that someone should be able to resist the covenant and apostasize. In what way, then, is the New Covenant a better covenant?

 

[DD2008]

True baptism is commanded. The baptism of infants, however, not so clear, at least to me. There are certainly no explicit commands to baptize infants anywhere in scripture.

I'm also not convinced that it is done in the hope of future regeneration. The confession seems on the surface to suggest that it is a signifier of something already occurring, and a guarantee (seal) of something to come. Baptism is not a symbol for God to do something, but a sign of what has been done to us through faith. It has everything to do with salvation. If it is true that it is a promise that God is a God of families, then it is unthinkable that someone should be able to resist the covenant and apostasize. In what way, then, is the New Covenant a better covenant?

Here is a great book that will cover everything:

Amazon.com: Introducing Covenant Theology (9780801071959): Michael Horton: Books

I don't know if you read any of the articles or not but they are pretty good as well, especially the one the goon posted. The best thing to do is to talk to your pastor and ask him to show you in the bible and explain to you why we Presbyterians baptize infants. I think you need some one on one time with a good pastor. I hope yours is a good one

If you will not change your position and find yourself in a constant situation where you are explaining why you won't change your position instead of being open to the doctrines of the denomination you are a part of, you should then simply join a baptist church where you fit in in order to bring peace to your congergation you are a part of that you don't share a common theology with. You will never change the Presbyterian stance on proper infant baptism, because we believe it is biblical and that is in our confession the WCF, we do not confess the LCF that is a reformed baptist confession.

 

[Judson]

Thanks for the resources and the interaction, DD. Lots to think about...

 

[DD2008]

Thanks for the resources and the interaction, DD. Lots to think about...

Certainly brother. Have a merry Christmas.

 

[Judson]

btw, you've probably already unsubscribed the emotion thread, but here's treatise from one of your own Reformed Presbyterians, R.L. Dabney, on the issue:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm

 

[help_the_lord]

You need to ask yourself this simple question. Why is it John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus as a child.. Why did Christ ask him to do it when he was much older. With this answer you can see where the true view of infant baptism should be placed.

 

[Cjwinnit]

A question for my paedo brothers.

That could be taken soooo wrongly...

 

[DD2008]

Brothers,

It has been almost 4 months since I participated in this this thread. Recently I have been speaking with some baptist members of the puritan board in regards to baptism and such and I now find myself in a state of review regarding the doctrine. I am still paedo, but I can see the credo position in scripture as well. I am going to take some time and deal with this through study, prayer, and dialog with others. If anyone comes along and asks about Presbyterian baptism don't expect me to participate in those threads until I sort this out. There are solid Godly men on both sides of this debate.

David

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

A question for my paedo brothers. The WCF Ch. 28 says the following about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. of remission of sins, Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.


Now, if baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration, ingrafting into Christ, forgiveness of sins, in short, salvation, then does this mean that ALL children of believers are elect, by virtue of their baptism?

Put another way, what is the relationship between an infant of a believer and their final salvation with respect to their baptism?

thanks.

Reformed theologians have produced 3 streams of thought on this subject:
1. the Federal vision: this is wrong and is reformed theology in sheep's clothing. no need to do in to detail here
2. Early Reformed- some Westminster divines: This view (and there are variantes in it) would say that Baptism plays a role in justification but not through the water but rather because reformed theology insists that the Word and sacrament always go together so it is the WORD through the baptism that affects a child in some way and that later faith attaches to the promises in baptism and brings it to maturity whether it is by a conversion experience or a long process of maturity. Calvin could talk like this at times and some PUritans also leaned in this direction (à la David Dickson)
3. Mainstream/evangelical: Over time (and some historians would say its because of the influence of ''revivalism'' but I would say it's biblical and thats in baptism the promises of the covenant of grace are proclaimed and enter under the care of the visible church till they are converted (in God's timing if they are elect). Baptism proclaims and gives the promises in a special way because of covenant children's unique position. If the baptized child refuses as he gets older not to act upon the promises (which he is obligated to by virtue of covenant) he should be given a separate category for membership OR excommunicated if he or she lives in sin in a manner of unrepentance (depending on school of thought here).

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

You need to ask yourself this simple question. Why is it John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus as a child.. Why did Christ ask him to do it when he was much older. With this answer you can see where the true view of infant baptism should be placed.

1. Impossible due to the age and 1b. john the baptist's baptism was for national israel not CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
2. Christian baptism is the New covenant of circumcision for it points to the promises of God in the Gospel which are given to man by FAITH ALONE. Abraham received the sign AFTER faith but his children were given the sign before faith (both the elect and the reprobate received the sign :easeau and jacob).