Why the Children of Believers Ought to be Baptized

[Sola1517]

But it's also possible to be united to Christ and members of his church in an external sense. We all know people who are members of the church for a season but later fall away. They were not truly regenerate, but they were truly members of the church for a brief time.

Oh okay.

There are several ways that the Bible uses "holy". One can be holy in a certain sense and yet not holy in another sense. The children of believers are holy in that they are born into believing homes, subject to Bible teaching, subject to godly discipline, and in that way set apart from other children.

Hmm, can you name a verse?

 

[Tree of Life]

Hmm, can you name a verse?

Yes. The verse I mentioned. In 1 Corinthians 7:14 Paul calls the children of believers "holy".

 

[GingerBeer]

Peter Leithart has written several articles arguing for this point. His most robust essay can be found in this anthology. He relies on the work of several other scholars who have demonstrated pagan connections to baptismal regeneration. Apparently the idea of conversion and renewal was actually pretty important in certain forms of paganism. I don't have the book on hand now so I can't reference the scholars he depends upon, but I can look it up later tonight.

I once read Rev Hislop's book "The Two Babylons" which purported to prove that "the roman worship" was nothing but "the worship of Nimrod and his wife Semiramis"; which is of course a total nonsense. So I am a little hesitant to accept the link you give as authority that must be accepted. I'll have a look at it if it is online. But I am not willing to spend weeks researching a claim such as yours without something here in this thread that is a little bit convincing.

As for the early church's testimony, there are numerous references to baptismal regeneration in early to mid second century writers. Here is an example, not the only one, from the Shepherd of Hermas.

They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. … For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” (Shepherd of Hermas; chapter 16 of the ninth Similitude) The Shepherd of Hermas (Roberts-Donaldson translation)
​

 

[Sola1517]

Yes. The verse I mentioned. In 1 Corinthians 7:14 Paul calls the children of believers "holy".

Oh, yeah, right. Makes sense.

So all that baptism is, is an identifier that the person is in covenant with God's people? It has no connection to confession?

 

[Tree of Life]

Oh, yeah, right. Makes sense.

So all that baptism is, is an identifier that the person is in covenant with God's people? It has no connection to confession?

It does have a connection to confession. Baptism proclaims our union with Christ. So in adults it should always be accompanied with faith and confession. And for the baptism to mean anything for a child, they must eventually come to confess their faith. If the baptized child never comes to believe in Christ and confess their faith, then their baptism does not do them any good.

 

[Sola1517]

It does have a connection to confession. Baptism proclaims our union with Christ. So in adults it should always be accompanied with faith and confession. And for the baptism to mean anything for a child, they must eventually come to confess their faith. If the baptized child never comes to believe in Christ and confess their faith, then their baptism does not do them any good.

You know, even as a Baptist it makes some sense. Thanks.

 

[Jonaitis]

No, because you’re arguing that baptism is covenantel without faith, like circumcision was for old Israel, but that’s not true.

Show me one scripture of an unbeliever getting baptized, ever anywhere in scripture.

You’re right in regards to circumcision not always being accompanied by faith, because circumcision was also for national purposes. Whereas baptism is ALWAYS accompanied by faith in scripture.

I agree.

 

[Dave-W]

1. What is a covenant?
2. Is a covenant made on an individual basis with the elect?
3. How is the covenant established?

I would suggest you read a book devoted mostly to those questions, how covenants in the ancient Near East were understood, enacted; and just as importantly, how they were changed over time:

“TORAH REDISCOVERED” by Ariel Berkowitz.

The first 3/4 of the book is on covenants. The final part I disagree with, but that is his application of the covenant status to gentile Christians today.

 

[Dave-W]

Baptism proclaims our union with Christ.

Dr Derek Prince (of blessed memory) likens it to a funeral and burial for the “Old Man.”

 

[Tree of Life]

You know, even as a Baptist it makes some sense. Thanks.

I think it's unfortunate that this issue divides reformed churches. It should be possible for people (and ministers) with a covenantal view of baptism and credo baptists (and ministers) to exist together in the same church.

 

[Jonaitis]

The division is not without reason. In Reformed churches, the RPW is something to be taken very seriously. It should be under the conviction of a body of believers to worship in accordance with Scripture. The way the sacraments are to be treated in the public worship has serious implications in our relation to God. This discussion applies to the Lord's table, and in many cases it is considered closed in light of how the elders or a local body may feel about it. So, there needs to be this sort of faction to settle the good conscience of some Christians regarding the way they view theology and their worship to God.

Edit: credobaptists base their view on a covenant framework too...not just paedobaptists. The view of Covenant Theology is more broad than this thread's OP, even within paedobaptist and credobaptist bodies. The debate on baptism was based on a view of covenant theology, that was the argument for the early baptist movement in the early seventeenth century. It is a bit insulting to suggest we don't consider this at all.

 

[Dave-W]

 

[Jonaitis]

I edited my post...

 

[1213]

...Christianity is by nature a supernatural belief system. ...

I think magical is not same as supernatural.

 

[bcbsr]

Roman Catholics teach that children should be baptized so that they might be justified and regenerated from an early age in baptism.

Baptists teach that children should not be baptized because baptism is reserved only for those who are able to make a credible profession of faith and who are already justified and regenerated.

Both are wrong.

The apostles taught that the children of believers are to be baptized for covenantal reasons. This reasoning is rooted in Old Testament revelation and would be particularly understandable for a Jewish audience. But as the church grew beyond the bounds of Judaism into Gentile lands, the practice of infant baptism was retained, yet it gradually became unmoored from its covenantal framework. Pagan ideas crept into the church and began to influence thinking on baptism and baptism gradually became more magical as the church headed into the medieval era. The Reformation recovered the covenantal setting of baptism. Here's the proper rationale:

1. The Covenant in the OT and in the NT is essentially one, although administered differently. This is to say that both Abraham and the NT believer are in the same covenant of grace. Both Abraham and the NT believer are saved by Jesus Christ - by grace through faith. Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham rather than introducing something altogether new.
   
   
2. The children of believers were included in the OT administration of the covenant of grace. Not only Abraham but also his children were given the mark of circumcision and recognized as members of the covenant community. Circumcision was a sign and seal of faith but was not necessarily accompanied by faith in the one circumcised. All in Israel were called to circumcise their hearts.
   
   
3. There is an explicit connection made between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. Paul says that the one who has been baptized has been circumcised.
   
   
4. There is no New Testament command to not baptize children and to exclude them from the covenant. Since the NT administration continues the covenant that God began in the OT, and since in the OT the children of believers were included in the covenant, one would assume that the children of believers should also be included in the NT administration of the covenant. If they were not to be included and given the sign of inclusion, then one would think that the apostles would have explicitly said: "Don't baptize children like you circumcised them in previous times!" But there is no such command. Within a covenantal context, the silence is very telling.

Wrong on all counts.

1. Rom 10:5-10 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

2. The New Covenant only applies to believers (see above)

3. He's talking about the comparison of the circumcision of the heart and baptism with the Holy Spirit - both done "without hands". And since one cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from faith in Christ, it doesn't apply to unbelievers.

4. You're assuming the Bible advocates that which it doesn't explicitly exclude, attempting a proof by the absence of evidence. But as you can see from above, the burden of proof is on you as the New Covenant has only ever been explicitly applied to believers, and in fact is explicitly excluded from those who don't believe the gospel (which would include unbelieving children of Christians).

Justification is by faith in Christ according to the New Covenant, and not by one's genes.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I will go out on a limb here and state that, without the slightest scintilla of a doubt, all children of believers ought to become believers themselves and be baptized. I will go even further and say that all people ought to believe in Jesus Christ and be baptized.

Now, will all of these folks become believers? Absolutely not! Will all be baptized? Perhaps. Will baptism turn them into believers? Not on your life.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Yes. All who are regenerate saved persons from any era are New Covenant believers. There were New Covenant believers in the Old Testament era.

Except that Paul emphasizes that Abraham received this promise without circumcision, nor does he believe in a ritualistic replacement for circumcision but speaks of circumcision of the heart. Salvation begins from within and not from without.