why infant baptism

[Imblessed]

The short answer is no, and the long answer would end up getting this post edited and me getting an unofficial warning.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

the reason I ask this---do you rebaptize a person who was infant baptized in a roman catholic church but converts to the reformed church? Just curious. I'm certainly not trying to start any issues here, I'm just honestly curious...

 

[Jon_]

Okay, you agree that these things are part of the symbolism of baptism. But how can any of that apply to an infant?

Because they are not the only symbols expressed through the sacrament. There is also the santification of the receiver of the sacrament (setting them apart for God), the public pronouncement of the receiver as being in the covenant of grace, and the washing away of sins.

Question 165: What is Baptism?

Answer: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

The questions that you asked regarding the Lord's Supper apply to baptism. Is an infant even capable of willingly partaking in baptism. . .a sacrament? We only allow Christians to partake of the sacraments. . .only Christians can have the Lord's Supper and only Christians can be baptized.

Right. We do not baptize infants to make them Christians, we baptize them because they are Christians. This is where understanding Covenant Theology comes into play. Just as Jews circumcised their infants because they were the seed of Abraham who instituted circumcision, so do we Christians baptize our infants, for in our faith, we are the seed of Abraham, and baptism is the archetype of circumcision. In other words, circumcizing someone did not make them Jewish, but they were circumcized because they were Jewish. The offspring of the Jews were just as much party to God's covenant with Israel as their parents were. Likewise, the children of Christians are just as much party to the covenant as their parents are. Note that this does not make them automatically elect, there is a distinct difference there. It means that through the covenant of grace, that is, through the seed of Abraham, all the nations will be blessed.

It is true there is a difference between the Lord's Supper and Baptism. Of course there is. They are different sacraments, of course. Just as circumcision and Passover were two distinctly different practices in the Old Testament, the sacraments of the New Testament are also different. Baptism is a sign and seal of the ingrafting of the individual to Christ and the state of the person as being in the covenant of grace. The Lord's Supper is the practice of professing believers participating in the partaking of Christ's body and blood as commanded by him at the Last Supper.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

the reason I ask this---do you rebaptize a person who was infant baptized in a roman catholic church but converts to the reformed church? Just curious. I'm certainly not trying to start any issues here, I'm just honestly curious...

I sent you a PM.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

Well, I can see that this "debate" is getting nowhere. So, for now (that is, as long as I can resist the urge to post ) I'm just going to stop and agree to disagree. Usually, when I'm with paedobaptists, I jsut keep quite about baptism since that is basically the only area of theology that we differ on. When Iwent to my grandparents' church for their VBS this past summer, by the end of the week I had trouble convicing everyone that I wasn't a Presbyterian and that I was a Reformed Baptist!

 

[lmnop9876]

The short answer is no, and the long answer would end up getting this post edited and me getting an unofficial warning.

I think Roman Catholic baptisms are valid. any baptism done with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is valid.

 

[Jon_]

I think Roman Catholic baptisms are valid. any baptism done with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is valid.

Even if it were done, say, by Anton LaVey?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[lmnop9876]

Even if it were done, say, by Anton LaVey?

I don't know who Anton LaVey is.
"The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them."

 

[edie19]

Even if it were done, say, by Anton LaVey?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

But why would a satanist consider baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit???

 

[Jon_]

I don't know who Anton LaVey is.

Founder of the Church of Satan.

"The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them."

Indeed, the sacraments are never means to salvation themselves, but only the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit through them bring any effect.

But why would a satanist consider baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit???

That's sort of dodging the question, isn't it, hun?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't know who Anton LaVey is.
"The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them."

I never did get sacrementalism , the closest I have come to accept it is the use of olive oil for healing ........ the rest I am unconvinced by .... it sounds to much like , dare I say it , superstition.

 

[edie19]

That's sort of dodging the question, isn't it, hun?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Not intentionally - I truly found it an odd example. Now if you had said David Koresh or Jim Jones - then yes, I would see your point. Those men incorporated enough Scripture to appeal to those seeking God, and yes, I know that none truly seek after God. But I think you see my point - at least those 2 men (or the countless others like them) claimed to be doing something in God's name. LaVey might participate and/or encourage followers to participate - but he wouldn't baptize in the name of the trinity.

So back to my example - a baptism performed by a Koresh or Jones would not be valid or recognized by any true church.

edie

BTW - am I supposed to call you "sweetie" now?

 

[Jon_]

Not intentionally - I truly found it an odd example. Now if you had said David Koresh or Jim Jones - then yes, I would see your point. Those men incorporated enough Scripture to appeal to those seeking God, and yes, I know that none truly seek after God. But I think you see my point - at least those 2 men (or the countless others like them) claimed to be doing something in God's name. LaVey might participate and/or encourage followers to participate - but he wouldn't baptize in the name of the trinity.

So back to my example - a baptism performed by a Koresh or Jones would not be valid or recognized by any true church.

Okay. Let's make the example less extreme and go with Koresh or Jones, then.

BTW - am I supposed to call you "sweetie" now?

You don't have to, but wouldn't it be cute?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[edie19]

Okay. Let's make the example less extreme and go with Koresh or Jones, then.


You don't have to, but wouldn't it be cute?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Again - no, a baptism performed by Koresh or Jones - even if they invoked the name of the Triune God would not be a valid baptism.

It might be cute and just as long as you recognize that I have a son older than you. And do you really want someone your mom's age (I'm guessing here, I'm probably older than her) calling you sweetie?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

The sacraments never become effectual means of salvation.

I apologize for butting in, but I just have a quick question. Does this mean that you disagree with WLC 161 (or SC 91, now that I think of it)? If so I'm curious to know why.

 

[Jon_]

Again - no, a baptism performed by Koresh or Jones - even if they invoked the name of the Triune God would not be a valid baptism.

Agreed. For this same reason, I consider Catholic baptism invalid.

It might be cute and just as long as you recognize that I have a son older than you. And do you really want someone your mom's age (I'm guessing here, I'm probably older than her) calling you sweetie?

Aw, it was just a term of endearment. Forget I said it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I apologize for butting in, but I just have a quick question. Does this mean that you disagree with WLC 161 (or SC 91, now that I think of it)? If so I'm curious to know why.

Bleh, I misread what was originally posted. That's what happens when I read too fast, which is frequent. No, I don't disagree with Question 161. What tripped me up was the "effectual means of salvation," after which I missed the tie-in, which of course is that the sacraments are meaningless without the work of Christ and the Holy Ghost in them. Of course, the Larger Catechism does not say the sacraments are effectual means to salvation in themselves (or even necessary for the same), but that Christ and the Holy Spirit work through them. What I was objecting to is sacramentarianism, but that is not at all what the catechism expresses.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

I apologize for butting in, but I just have a quick question. Does this mean that you disagree with WLC 161 (or SC 91, now that I think of it)? If so I'm curious to know why.

Question 161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

Here we have something similar to this:

The Westminster Confession, Chapter XXI, iv, "Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death."

Before I was ordained a deacon I was called upon to point out any differences of opinion I had with the WCF. I cited this passage because it imposes a restriction that that the Scripture doesn't. 1 John 5:16, "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

Why did I object to this portion of the Confession? Look carefully at what the Confession requires: No prayer for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. Compare that to "I do not say that he shall pray for it". The Confession, at this point, has expanded upon the Biblical command. There is a huge difference between saying "I do not say that you shall", and saying "thou shalt not".

Q 161 of the WLC is in this category, but only by a hair since the question clearly precludes any intrinsic value. What the WLC teaches at this point is not that the sacraments are salvific in themselves, but that they are of great value to the believer soley because of the work of the Spirit. They are not the organon, merely the manifestation.

 

[edie19]

It should also be noted how the London Baptist Confession of 1689, while retaining most of the wording of the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession upon which it was based, eliminates all mention of the covenants that comprise Covenant Theology and its implications in baptism. Baptists have historically rejected Covenant Theology outright, or accepted a modified version that repudiated the connection between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. The two are inherently interdependent.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Had to double check my history here and confirmed what I had learned when my adult class studied the confession - but the LBC predates the Westminster by 2 years. The commonly known London Baptist Confession of 1689 was based on the First Baptist Confession published in 1644. I do want to be clear - I'm not questioning the validity of either document. I refer to my copy of the Westminster almost as much as I refer to my copy of the LBC. My church is currently going through the Westminster catechism as part of their Sunday evening service. I'm just being a little (maybe a lot) argumentative because the LBC wasn't based on the Westminster, that's a common but incorrect assumption.

Now I realize that there are lots of Baptists and they compromise a lot of different doctrines - and I'm only familiar with the Reformed Baptists. My pastor would tell you that credobaptism is consistent with covenental theology, that we baptize believers because covenant theology demands it. He's getting me some information to support that statement - I'll have more to say after I read it.

I think I've said before in other threads that I grew up in a church that practices infant baptism - and it never made sense to me. I understand covenant theology - the covenants of grace and redemption. To the best of my understanding they are not inconsistent with multiple Scripture references that they "believed and were baptized."

Anyhow - that's my current 2cents worth.

edie

 

[Jon_]

Question 161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

Here we have something similar to this:

The Westminster Confession, Chapter XXI, iv, "Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death."

Before I was ordained a deacon I was called upon to point out any differences of opinion I had with the WCF. I cited this passage because it imposes a restriction that that the Scripture doesn't. 1 John 5:16, "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

Why did I object to this portion of the Confession? Look carefully at what the Confession requires: No prayer for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. Compare that to "I do not say that he shall pray for it". The Confession, at this point, has expanded upon the Biblical command. There is a huge difference between saying "I do not say that you shall", and saying "thou shalt not".

Q 161 of the WLC is in this category, but only by a hair since the question clearly precludes any intrinsic value. What the WLC teaches at this point is not that the sacraments are salvific in themselves, but that they are of great value to the believer soley because of the work of the Spirit. They are not the organon, merely the manifestation.

Wow, some more outstanding points here from brother Moore. I am truly blessed that you have decided to frequent our little forum here.

One of the comments you made, "There is a huge difference between saying 'I do not say that you shall,' and saying 'thou shalt not,'" brings up a great point. We know from the first account of sin that either Eve or Adam expanded the requirement of God's commandment to them. Eve did not accurately relate God's commandment to the serpent. She said that they shall not eat the fruit (which is true) nor shall they touch it (which is false). This sin is either Eve's or Adam's, the account does not tell which of them is guilty of the fabrication, but it is unique in that it is the first verifiable instance of sin in the Word. The first sin was this lie. Now, we stop well short of accusing the framers of the catechism of sin, such is far from the point. But as brother Moore pointed out, there is clearly no warrant for imposing a greater restriction upon Christian liberty than is laid out in Scripture.

The only difference of opinion that I would have with Question 161 is that I would word it in a less ambiguous manner. The "effectual means of salvation" is a troublesome phrase that could probably be omitted or changed to a less easily misunderstood (even if wholly at the fault of the reader, which I admit) phrase.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Had to double check my history here - but the LBC predates the Westminster by 2 years. The commonly known London Baptist Confession of 1689 was based on the First Baptist Confession published in 1644.

Glad to see you're doing your homework!

I'm aware of the 1644 Baptist Confession, but the structure of the 1689 Confession and its foundation as the historic confession of Reformed Baptist congregations is very much founded in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Our brother, BBAS64, had posted in the Resource Room a website that compares the two side-by-side, pointing out the similarities and dissimiliarities. There is far more continuity between LBCF1689 and WCF1646 than LBCF1689 and LBCF1644. Here is the link: http://www.rblist.org/1689vWCF.html. You can find the LBCF1644 here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1644.htm.

Now I realize that there are lots of Baptists and they compromise a lot of different doctrines - and I'm only familiar with the Reformed Baptists. My pastor would say that credobaptism is consistent with covenental theology, that we baptize believers because covenant theology demands it. He's getting me some information to support that statement - I'll have more to say after I read it.

Okay, well one is free to think what he will. I just see a great many difficulties for him to surmount if he confirms historic Reformed Covenant Theology because paedobaptism is almost completely integrated into Typology and the proper understanding of who is included in the covenant of grace. I'm thinking that he's probably not quite as covenantal as you might think; otherwise, you too would be baptizing babies.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon