# I decided that there weren't enough threads on baptism today, so...



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2007)

I've got a couple questions for Presbyterians.

1) Can presumptive regeneration be an extension of the judgment of charity to our infants?

2) Is infant baptism a profession of the faith of the _parents_ rather than a profession of the child's faith? So it's a profession about what God has promised to elect families, rather than a profession of personal belief in the Gospel? [insert confused emoticom here]


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2007)

1. Apples and oranges. PR says that we presume that the child is "actually" regenerated. judgment of charity does not presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit. 

2. Because of the covenant relationship between parents and a child, the child is baptized based on the fact that one of the parents is a Christian and therefore is a part of the visible church. It is the parent that makes the profession. The child will make its own profession when they become a communing member of the church.

C'mon Meg. You could have broken each question into its own thread!!


----------



## Davidius (Feb 19, 2007)

turmeric said:


> I've got a couple questions for Presbyterians.
> 
> 1) Can presumptive regeneration be an extension of the judgment of charity to our infants?
> 
> 2) Is infant baptism a profession of the faith of the _parents_ rather than a profession of the child's faith? So it's a profession about what God has promised to elect families, rather than a profession of personal belief in the Gospel? [insert confused emoticom here]



I'm not sure I understand question 1 so I'll just go straight to question two and offer my 

We don't understand baptism as being about the "personal profession and/or belief" of anyone. This may be the cause of your look of confusion. If one tries to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian view of baptism with Credobaptist presuppositions, it's not going to make any sense at all.

In order for an adult who was not born into a Christian household to be baptized, he/she must have their own profession of faith, but the baptism is not a sign of their profession. Baptism is a "sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace." It is a picture of the gospel for all to see, as preaching is an audible presentation of the gospel. When the water is poured/sprinkled onto the person's head, this is symbolizing the Holy Spirit being "poured out" onto God's people. It's a picture of the "washing of regeneration." But, as I already mentioned, it does not represent "the believer's profession to the world that he trusts in Christ." This (a profession) just happens to be necessary for adults who were not born into the Church since they were not baptized as infants and are now joining the Church as adults (see Wayne's comment on initiation). Baptism is a sign of what God has promised to do, not of what an individual is promising to God and/or the Church. 

Therefore, Baptism means the same thing for infants. It is not a display of anyone's profession of faith. It is a picture of the gospel and a reminder to God's Church of the blessings that come to those who appropriate what the sign signifies by faith.


----------



## KMK (Feb 19, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Baptism is a _"sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace."_ It is a *picture* of the gospel for all to see, as preaching is an audible presentation of the gospel. When the water is poured/sprinkled onto the person's head, this is *symbolizing* the Holy Spirit being "poured out" onto God's people. It's a *picture* of the "washing of regeneration."



I understand that baptism is a 'picture' and a 'symbol'. But you, and many other Presbyterians refer to it as not only a sign but a 'seal'. I have read Samuel Miller, Kenneth Gentry, and Charles Hodge on this subject, and I have heard this preached by Pastor Morecraft, but I have never understood where the idea of a 'seal' comes in.

I do wish to understand the Presbyterian viewpoint on this 'seal'. Cna someone point me to a previous thread? Certainly this subject has been discussed before and I do not wish to hijack this thread.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 19, 2007)

KMK said:


> I understand that baptism is a 'picture' and a 'symbol'. But you, and many other Presbyterians refer to it as not only a sign but a 'seal'. I have read Samuel Miller, Kenneth Gentry, and Charles Hodge on this subject, and I have heard this preached by Pastor Morecraft, but I have never understood where the idea of a 'seal' comes in.
> 
> I do wish to understand the Presbyterian viewpoint on this 'seal'. Cna someone point me to a previous thread? Certainly this subject has been discussed before and I do not wish to hijack this thread.



Ken,

This is a question I myself had when I was becoming a Presbyterian. I believe the short answer is that it is a "sign" for all and a "seal" for those who appropriate the benefits which baptism signifies by faith. The terminology of "sign and seal" comes from the WCF. Unfortunately I have to be on campus soon so I don't have time to say anything else right now. If no one else has taken up the cause by the time I return I'll say more.


----------



## panicbird (Feb 19, 2007)

> Romans 4:11: [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them.



This is where the language comes from biblically. Circumcision was a sign and seal. As an initiatory rite, baptism is the New Covenant replacement of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, baptism is also a sign and seal.


----------



## KMK (Feb 19, 2007)

Once again, it is not my desire to change topics from the OP. Are there threads that I can be directed to that would support the 'seal' aspect of baptism with other scripture besides Rom 4:11?


----------



## non dignus (Feb 19, 2007)

The seal is a mark of ownership. We are marked as holy unto God.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 19, 2007)

turmeric said:


> I've got a couple questions for Presbyterians.
> 
> 1) Can presumptive regeneration be an extension of the judgment of charity to our infants?




1 Cor 13:4 "Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 
5. doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 
6. rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 
7. beareth all things, *believeth all things, hopeth all things*, endureth all things.


----------



## MW (Feb 19, 2007)

1. "Presumption" carries negative connotations in practical theology and never should have been permitted into the terminology of systematic theology. The judgment of charity follows from baptism, and decides nothing in relation to the child's inward, spiritual condition. It is only the Holy Spirit who seals the promises inwardly in the hearts of the elect. Baptism outwardly confirms the promises of the covenant, so that we may look to it as a guarantee that God has established His covenant with our children as well as with ourselves. We must differentiate between promise and fulfilment.

2. Profession is made by the guardian in order to infant baptism, but baptism itself is a visible and objective profession of faith on the part of the child. Too much subjectivism clouds the significance of this rite.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 19, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> The child will make its own profession when they become a communing member of the church.



Well, that's the hope, anyway. Nothing's guaranteed, since not all infants are among the elect.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 19, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> ...but baptism itself is a visible and objective profession of faith on the part of the child.



An older child, yes, but not of an infant, for obvious reasons.


----------



## jenney (Feb 21, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> In order for an adult who was not born into a Christian household to be baptized, he/she must have their own profession of faith



So an adult who _is_ born into a Christian household can be baptized without a profession of faith?



> When the water is poured/sprinkled onto the person's head, this is symbolizing the Holy Spirit being "poured out" onto God's people.


I thought it symbolized the death and resurrection of Christ as well as the washing of the conscience (because the person is justified). Can you point me to Scripture about it representing the Holy Spirit?



> This (a profession) just happens to be necessary for adults who were not born into the Church since they were not baptized as infants and are now joining the Church as adults (see Wayne's comment on initiation).


My parents are unbelievers, but they had me baptized as an infant because they were in a paedobaptist church. When I became a believer as an 18 year old I really didn't know if I should be baptized again. Are you saying that my baptism, despite my parents' lack of faith, was legitimate and that I wouldn't have needed to be baptized (again) to join a presbyterian church?



> Baptism is a sign of what God has promised to do


Oh, this is just what I have been trying to understand!!!

*What has God promised to do for the unbelieving person who has been baptized?*

I'm totally not trying to be argumentative. I know this is debate/discuss, and I am the "discuss" side of that. I really want to understand what paedos believe and why. What are the promises of baptism?

Are my unbaptized, but believing children outside the covenant while unbelieving children who are baptized are inside the covenant? I don't mind if that is considered to be the case, but I want to understand. Does God have different promises for these children of mine than He has for the unbelieving baptized children of your families?

Is this too off-topic, Meg? If so, I'm sorry and I won't ask any more questions along these lines (within this thread). It seemed to relate to the whole basis issue that you brought up.

Thanks so much!


----------



## Davidius (Feb 21, 2007)

jenney said:


> So an adult who _is_ born into a Christian household can be baptized without a profession of faith?
> 
> 
> I thought it symbolized the death and resurrection of Christ as well as the washing of the conscience (because the person is justified). Can you point me to Scripture about it representing the Holy Spirit?
> ...




Hi Jenney,

Your concerns are approriate and I appreciate you adding them to the discussion. This thread has been dead for a while so I assume it would be okay for us to go into them here instead of starting a new thread. However, I'm on campus right now and have to be in class in a few minutes. I'll respond to your post sometime this evening.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 21, 2007)

Jenny,



> So an adult who is born into a Christian household can be baptized without a profession of faith?



An infant of at least one Christian parent can be baptized. A profession of faith is not required of the infant, but a profession is requred of the parent (they would have made that profession when they became communing members of that particular church). At this point the infant is a non-communing member of the church. When they reach an age where they can discern the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper, then they will make their own profession. 

All adults, regardless of whether their parents are Christians or not, who present themselves for baptism are required to make a credible profession of faith. For the adult, they will be baptized and also become a communing member of the church.

One issue that a Session must deal with is when parents bring an older child to be baptized, should a profession be required or not?



> My parents are unbelievers, but they had me baptized as an infant because they were in a paedobaptist church. When I became a believer as an 18 year old I really didn't know if I should be baptized again. Are you saying that my baptism, despite my parents' lack of faith, was legitimate and that I wouldn't have needed to be baptized (again) to join a presbyterian church?



One would have to assume that in order for the church to baptize you, your parents made a profession when they became members of that church. Whether your parents gave a false or true profession, only they would know. The Church would have taken them at their word. As you know, false professions can happen in Baptist as well as Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches. Besides, the quality of the profession does not validate or invalidate baptism just as the theology of the one baptizing validates or invalidates baptism.

As far as your baptism as an infant, yes that was legitimate.



> Are my unbaptized, but believing children outside the covenant while unbelieving children who are baptized are inside the covenant? I don't mind if that is considered to be the case, but I want to understand. Does God have different promises for these children of mine than He has for the unbelieving baptized children of your families?



Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, but that inward grace is from the Holy Spirit who applies this grace only to the elect. The Holy Spirit does not need baptism to apply the grace of salvation to the elect. 

Regarding your children, it depends upon what you mean by "inside the covenant". The promises of God are to all those who profess Christ and their children within the visible church. But they are only effectual for the elect. Do you know who the elect are? Does being baptised make a person a "believer"? Can a profession of faith that is false or true, make one a believer?


----------



## MW (Feb 21, 2007)

bookslover said:


> An older child, yes, but not of an infant, for obvious reasons.



Richard, our catechism states it is their engagement to be the Lord's. The obvious reasons you mention would all be subjective, which does not prejudice the fact that baptism is the child's objective profession of faith. Blessings!


----------



## jenney (Feb 21, 2007)

Wayne,

Thank you so much! This was very helpful!
Of course I need more clarification!

You say:


> An infant of at least one Christian parent can be baptized.


but then later:


> One would have to assume that in order for the church to baptize you, your parents made a profession when they became members of that church.


and


> Whether your parents gave a false or true profession, only they would know.



I'm confused by the use of "Christian parent" in the first quote. The only way we can guage would be by credible profession, right? So only God knows who is a Christian parent and we're back where we started. If we say that one Christian parent qualifies, we're still sort of stuck because we don't know who is truly elect. Did you actually mean one parent who "professes Christ"?

I think the key is "credible" profession. My parents still profess to be believers but if you ask them why they are going to heaven, they say that they are good people and have never really sinned in a significant way. My dad has asked me before why I'm so concerned about Jesus and talking about Him all the time. Their profession is not credible. I would expect your church would not admit them to membership. But it would recognize my baptism because it isn't about to track down the parents of all the members to find out if those parents' professions were genuine. Still I find it disturbing.



> One issue that a Session must deal with is when parents bring an older child to be baptized, should a profession be required or not?


I'm sorry for my ignorance: what's a Session? Does this mean that if the OPC had a pope, he could just give an age of "profession accountability" and that would be the end of that? 



> Regarding your children, it depends upon what you mean by "inside the covenant".


Well, I mean what you guys mean. When you call your children "covenant children" what do you mean? Are my children covenant children too?



> The promises of God are to all those who profess Christ and their children within the visible church.


Think back to your Algebra class. Do you mean this:
(all those who profess Christ) and (their children within the church)

or this:
(all those who profess Christ within the church) and (their children within the church)

Is the prepositional phrase "within the church" distributed across both subjects?

Because it seems to me that you would not consider my children to be within the visible church since they aren't baptised. So the promises of God would not be to them if "within the church" applies to both subjects of the sentence.

If it is not distributed, then the promises are to those who profess (my older children) and their children within the visible church. In that case the promises are for my believing children but not for the ones who don't (because they aren't within the visible church or professing)

You would not say, "they are unsaved because of not being baptised despite their faith." But, assuming their profession credible to the extent that you would assume mine, they would then be recipients of the promises of God? Or not?



> But they are only effectual for the elect.


The elect who are baptised or all the elect? Because some elect are not baptised (though of course I believe we are commanded to be baptised and to join a local church, but the reality is that some disobediently/ignorantly do not).

If they are only effectual for the elect, how are they different for baptised vs. non-baptised people? I mean, what good is an ineffectual promise? And if they have to believe to receive benefits, then what is the difference between a paedobaptist's non-believing children and mine?

I'm hoping these are rhetorical questions, and not genuine, but I'll answer anyway:


> Do you know who the elect are? Does being baptised make a person a "believer"? Can a profession of faith that is false or true, make one a believer?


No, no, and no.

Here's where I think that line of questions was supposed to lead:
Do the promises apply to my children? If they are in the visible church, yes. But they are only effectual if my children are elect. We can't know if they are elect and neither being baptised nor professing faith make one elect so we can't know if they are going to be effectual to my children.

Is that your point? 

That within the paedo confession, there is a special place for children of believers: they are in the visible church and the promises of God are for them, effectual only if they believe.

Is that right?

(whew!)

It seems like paedobaptists always say things like, "you have false professors, too! And when you baptise someone you don't know if he is elect!" but I don't see anyone claiming that we do. I see it just like the Lord's Supper: for those who believe and we trust a credible profession when we allow someone to participate.

I have to say that you are nicer than anyone I've ever tried to discuss this with (except 5solasmom--hi Dawn!) and I appreciate your gracious reply. I've always felt patronized by presbyterians and you are speaking to me like I'm not a total imbecile (though wrt this issue, I suppose I am pretty dense!) and it has not gone unnoticed. Thank you! 

jenney


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 21, 2007)

(((Jenney)))

Trust me, friend, I went through several  episodes trying to understand the paedo view. LOL It takes time.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 21, 2007)

Jenny,

I'll try and clarify for you. 



> I'm confused by the use of "Christian parent" in the first quote. The only way we can guage would be by credible profession, right? So only God knows who is a Christian parent and we're back where we started. If we say that one Christian parent qualifies, we're still sort of stuck because we don't know who is truly elect. Did you actually mean one parent who "professes Christ"?



Yes. When I say a "Christian parent" I mean those who profess Christ. Yes only God knows for sure whose profession is indeed credible. 



> I think the key is "credible" profession. My parents still profess to be believers but if you ask them why they are going to heaven, they say that they are good people and have never really sinned in a significant way. My dad has asked me before why I'm so concerned about Jesus and talking about Him all the time. Their profession is not credible. I would expect your church would not admit them to membership. But it would recognize my baptism because it isn't about to track down the parents of all the members to find out if those parents' professions were genuine. Still I find it disturbing.




As you have noted the key is a "credible" profession. If a parent's profession is "credible" then the church, and anyone else, would accept that profession and be willing to say that that person is a Christian.

Regarding your parents, they would not be the first ones to say this. There are a number of folks on this board who were formerly Arminian, or believed that their works would help them get to heaven. They know better now. This may be the situation with your parents. The Lord may open their eyes to a fuller understanding of salvation and maybe that's where you come in!!

The Church where you were baptized accepted their profession and considered it credible. That's all we know. Therefore your baptism is acceptable and shouldn't be disturbing at all. Within Presbyterian circles, baptism is about God's promise to the recipient not the recipients promise to God.



> I'm sorry for my ignorance: what's a Session? Does this mean that if the OPC had a pope, he could just give an age of "profession accountability" and that would be the end of that?



A Session consists of the Ruling Elders and the Teaching Elders (Pastors) of a particular Presbyterian church. The Dutch Reformed have a Consistory(sp?). They are responsible for the oversight of the church. The OPC actually has a Constitution that consists of the Westminster Standards, Book of Church Order and Directory of Worship. These three documents govern how the OPC will operate from the General Assembly to a Session.



> Well, I mean what you guys mean. When you call your children "covenant children" what do you mean? Are my children covenant children too?



Since I don't know what others mean by the term, I usually don't use it. But this is how I use it the term if I actually used it: I define a covenant as an agreement with defined stipulations and consequences. In the Covenant of Grace the stipulations are "repent and believe" with the consequence being the promise of salvation. As Peter states in Acts, the promise is to "you and your children". So as far as I'm concerned, yes, the promise of the Covenant is to "you" and your "children". 



> Because it seems to me that you would not consider my children to be within the visible church since they aren't baptised. So the promises of God would not be to them if "within the church" applies to both subjects of the sentence.



I'm going to bypass the mean comments about my grammar  and try and clarify a few things. The promise would be to you and your children as your children would be considered apart of the visible church. You would just be considered deliquent in your duty to have them baptized. Some folks may take up to 2 or 3 months before they have their children baptized and we would consider those children just as much a part of the church as a baptized child. So since the Promise is to them as well as you, why deny the sign of the promise?



> If it is not distributed, then the promises are to those who profess (my older children) and their children within the visible church. In that case the promises are for my believing children but not for the ones who don't (because they aren't within the visible church or professing)



Since it is "distributed", there is no issue.



> You would not say, "they are unsaved because of not being baptised despite their faith." But, assuming their profession credible to the extent that you would assume mine, they would then be recipients of the promises of God? Or not?



Baptist and Presbyterian's both agree that baptism does not save anyone. Baptism is not the issue in regards to salvation. Its faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone.



> The elect who are baptised or all the elect? Because some elect are not baptised (though of course I believe we are commanded to be baptised and to join a local church, but the reality is that some disobediently/ignorantly do not).



Remember that baptism is a sign and seal there is no magic. It is for the bolstering of the recipients faith. If someone is elect and not baptized then baptism would have no meaning for them since they were not baptized.




> If they are only effectual for the elect, how are they different for baptised vs. non-baptised people? I mean, what good is an ineffectual promise? And if they have to believe to receive benefits, then what is the difference between a paedobaptist's non-believing children and mine?



Within the Church we have those who are elect and reprobate or non-elect. If a non-elect person is baptized (and they are all the time) the promise will not be effectual for them whether they are baptized or not. Reprobates don't get to go to heaven. Baptsim is not what saves you or your child.



> Do the promises apply to my children? If they are in the visible church, yes. But they are only effectual if my children are elect. We can't know if they are elect and neither being baptised nor professing faith make one elect so we can't know if they are going to be effectual to my children.
> 
> Is that your point?



Yes!



> That within the paedo confession, there is a special place for children of believers: they are in the visible church and the promises of God are for them, effectual only if they believe.



Its not just the "paedo" confession, its Scripture (1 Cor 7:14).

BTW, I believe that you are in the Visible Church and so are your children, so again, why not give them the sign??

Well this is probably clear as mud! But I hope it helps.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, our catechism states it is their engagement to be the Lord's. The obvious reasons you mention would all be subjective, which does not prejudice the fact that baptism is the child's objective profession of faith. Blessings!



For an older child giving a credible profession of faith, your statement is correct. However, for an _infant_, it can't be his profession of faith, since he cannot (yet) make one, which is a pretty objective fact.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 22, 2007)

Jenney,

For us, we realized that many of the objections we held against paedobaptism (child hasn't professed Christ yet etc) were the same arguments we could give against circumcision. Because we saw that the command of Abraham to give the sign to his sons had not been abrogated with the NT (as well as seeing the support that it continued), and as we studied the meaning of circumcision, we discovered it was not just a "physical sign" but a spiritual one, it made it clear to us that yes, baptism in adults is to be given after profession....but it is then to also be applied to _their children_.

I realized that another helpful resource on this for us was Brian Schwertley's series on baptism (particularly the one where he discusses baptist objections). I'd highly recommend listening the the series in full if you can. It helped us greatly.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html

Scroll down a bit until you get to Series on the Sacraments 
Rev. Brian Schwertley. They are excellent.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 22, 2007)

OOPS - I linked you to his written sermons (although good also ). If you go to Sermon Audio, you'll find them there too.


----------



## jenney (Feb 22, 2007)

> I'm going to bypass the mean comments about my grammar  and try and clarify a few things.



Oh! What mean comments about your grammar? Did I imply there was anything wrong with your grammar? I didn't mean to! Your grammar was fine, far as I could tell. 

The sentence was just ambiguous and the algebra analogy seemed like a good way to illustrate my confusion. Prepositional phrases can go nearly anywhere so it is really common for English sentences to have some ambiguity. You know, like that old joke about how I saw my father shoot and elephant in his pajamas and the other guy says to me, "what was an elephant doing in your father's pajamas?" In the case of the joke, it is a no-brainer that of course the pajamas were on the father not the elephant. In the case of the sentence about "within the visible church" it could have been reasonable either way so I had to ask. I should have found a better way to ask. I'm sorry. 

Is that clearer? Usually by trying to be really precise, I end up muddying things up even more!

I won't reply to the rest right now because I'm done nursing the baby and that means my time at the computer is done, too. I just wanted to clarify that mean comments thing right away.

i hope there wasn't undue offense taken.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 22, 2007)

None taken! I was just being... well ya know.


----------



## jenney (Feb 23, 2007)

Thanks Wayne! I'm starting to get a glimmer of understanding of the whole perspective. It is like a puzzle with lots of pieces and I have to get all of them in place to see the picture. I have been trying to put the last piece (paedobaptism) into the baptism slot on my puzzle and it doesn't fit. I can't just pop out the credobaptist piece and stick in the paedo piece. It is requiring shifting a few other pieces around and even exchanging them for others! (I will stop before the analogy runs away with me)



> The promise would be to you and your children as your children would be considered apart of the visible church.


OH! That is news to me. Is that the usual presbyterian view? That my children are part of the visible church? I thought that is what baptism _did_: make them part of it.



> Remember that baptism is a sign and seal there is no magic. It is for the bolstering of the recipients faith.



whoop! whoop! Danger Will Robinson! I'm lost again! How is it bolstering the faith of someone who doesn't have it yet? Wouldn't it do more for the faith of someone who has professed it and believes s/he has it? I was baptised as a baby (like I mentioned before) but didn't believe until I was 18. I wasn't baptised (again) until I was 21 because I spent the intervening time trying to understand if I needed to be. In the end, it was a tremendously rewarding thing to experience as a believer and did bolster my faith. My husband was commenting on it tonight, how real the promise of hope and everlasting life was to me after that. It did bolster my faith. I am wanting to see how it would do that for someone who doesn't recall it at all.

Can you give me an example?

Something like this:
I can see how circumcision would be encouraging to the faith of, say the young Israelite, even the one unbelieving. (Considering the rite, this is a little earthy, but I'm not going to be at all graphic. You'll appreciate that, no doubt!) He might say, "we can go in and take that city! This is our land and God gave it to us. He is on our team!" and in his excitement, his believing father might say, "son, it is your land, too, but don't put your hope in this earthly land. Look to heaven and trust the One who gave it to us. Our hope needs to be in Him and only Him, not in horses or chariots or promises of land and wealth." So his circumcision is a seal of the land promise and a sign of the deeper promise to those whose hearts are circumcised, a promise which will only be his if by God's grace the young Israelite does trust in Him.

But how does that translate into baptism today? Circumcision had the physical scar to correlate with the physical gift of Canaan which was given to all the members of the covenant, believing and unbelieving alike, and was a sign of what was a gift spiritually as well. Baptism seems to have nothing to offer the unbelieving the way being part of the old covenant did and therefore nothing to hold up as a symbol of "you get this physical thing but it is only a shadow of what you _can_ have!" 

For the believer it does, because I look back to my baptism and it is a sign to me of the great mercy of my Lord in His death and victorious resurrection and of my peace with God since He washed my conscience clean. Does my confusion make sense? Dawn, do you know what I mean? Was this parallel troubling to you too?

I think I'm making the wrong mistakes! (to paraphrase Yogi Berra)



> Its not just the "paedo" confession, its Scripture (1 Cor 7:14).


Another alarm going off! How does that fit the "sanctifying the unbelieving spouse" part? I will eat my hat if you tell me honestly that the unbelieving spouse can be baptised without a profession, too.

That was everything that was muddy for me. And it isn't your fault. I am _not_ the sharpest knife in the block.

I've never been able to get answers from anyone before, so this is great!

I think one problem is that some (dare I say "many"?) paedos think "Oh, you're dispensational and so you think that people are saved differently now from Abraham. Silly baptists!" but we _Reformed_ Baptists don't think that! We see the OT saints as saved by grace through faith just like the NT saints. 

Everyone sees some distinction betwixt the covenants, yes? The Sabbath changed to the first day of the week, the Comforter coming, preaching to the Gentiles, and more. The Old and New aren't identical in every way, even Presbyterians would agree to that. So we have a distinction between whether the new covenant is the same as the visible church. Credos would say it is not. We would say it is the same as the _in_visible church. But we both believe there is a visible and an invisible and that the invisible is saved people, though none of us claims to know for sure who is truly part of the invisible. I'm starting to see this in algebraic terms, but that got me into trouble before, so I'm going to stop here before I get into trouble again!  

You are so great Wayne! What a star! I really appreciate your time and replies! Thanks a bunch! (how many exclamations can I get in here?)


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

bookslover said:


> For an older child giving a credible profession of faith, your statement is correct. However, for an _infant_, it can't be his profession of faith, since he cannot (yet) make one, which is a pretty objective fact.



The point being that their baptism is the profession of faith, their engagement to be the Lord's.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 23, 2007)

jenney said:


> I can see how circumcision would be encouraging to the faith of, say the young Israelite, even the one unbelieving. (Considering the rite, this is a little earthy, but I'm not going to be at all graphic. You'll appreciate that, no doubt!) He might say, "we can go in and take that city! This is our land and God gave it to us. He is on our team!" and in his excitement, his believing father might say, "son, it is your land, too, but don't put your hope in this earthly land. Look to heaven and trust the One who gave it to us. Our hope needs to be in Him and only Him, not in horses or chariots or promises of land and wealth." So his circumcision is a seal of the land promise and a sign of the deeper promise to those whose hearts are circumcised, a promise which will only be his if by God's grace the young Israelite does trust in Him.
> 
> But how does that translate into baptism today? Circumcision had the physical scar to correlate with the physical gift of Canaan which was given to all the members of the covenant, believing and unbelieving alike, and was a sign of what was a gift spiritually as well.



Jenney,

[bible]Romans 4:9-12[/bible]

Circumcision was a spiritual sign. I'm not sure what all this talk is about it being a seal of the land promise. That may have been part of it (although I'm not quite sure where you're getting that), but the meaning of circumcision was always tied directly to the Covenant of Grace first and foremost. According to Paul, it was a sign of "the righteousness that Abraham had by faith." But according to what you're saying about these signs, only those who actually _have_ the faith should receive the sign. Why, then, were Abraham's children circumcised?

[bible]Genesis 17:9-11[/bible]

Abraham circumcised his children because God commanded him to. This is what I was saying earlier about the sign of the Covenant of Grace being a sign of what God has objectively promised to do, not in everyone, but in the elect who appropriate what the sign signifies by faith. Circumcision and Baptism are not, as you presuppose, a sign of the subjective faith that the receiver of the sacrament has, but an objective sign of the righteousness which comes by faith. This is why it can be given to the children of believers. As a rite of initiation into the visible Church, it is also a _reminder_ from God to us (the whole visible Church) of his covenant. If you fail to see the true nature of circumcision as an objective, spiritual sign of "the righteousness which is by faith," then you will never understand why Prebsyterians baptize their children.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> If you fail to see the true nature of circumcision as an objective, spiritual sign of "the which righteousness by faith," then you will never understand why Prebsyterians baptize their children.



Jenney - this was a huge realization to dh and I. OT scriptures which said that circumcision was a sign of FAITH sort of blew us away. At that point, we realized that an argument against infants receiving baptism because they didn't exhibit faith was starting to get tenuous, because if circumcision was a sign of faith - of heart circumcision (Duet. 30:6, Isaiah 52:1, Jer. 4:4, Ezek. 44:7, Rom. 2:28-29, Rom. 4:11) and not just an earthly promise, then why did infants get it? We couldn't find the support from scripture that circumcision was just a "physical" sign of God's people as we'd always been taught. It was clearly a spiritual sign.

From the book I'm sending you  :



> It cannot be overstated that baptism is not man's testimony, but God's testimony. Baptism is not intended as the testimony of the one being baptized that he has personally repented and believed. In fact, baptism is not a sign of anything we do. It is a sign of God's work on our behalf, by means of his gracious covenant, to save his elect people. It is a sign of God's calling. repentance and faith are responses to this initiating call of God. Greg Bahnsen comments,
> 
> _Abraham's circumcision was God's testimony in Abraham's flesh that righteousness cannot be merited by man's natural efforts - that it must be graciously imputed to the helpless sinner. Abraham was reckoned righteous, therefore, only by trusting in God's promis and provision - faith....We must note well that the signs of the covenant, whether circumcision or baptism, - being God's signs and ordained by Him - are God's testimony to God's gracious work of salvation. They declare the objective truth that justification comes only by faith in God's promise. Circumcision and baptism are not an individual's personal, subjective testimony to having saving faith for himself. _
> 
> ...



This is ultimately what it came down to for us. If we as baptists required an _express command_ to have infants baptized, then we were being inconsistent (in our estimation) because we were not requiring an express command from scripture that told us they were no longer included in the New Covenant. We couldn't find one - which in our view was strong in and of itself. But in that light and "operating" from that point, all the NT scriptures which speak of household baptism (and what mattered was not that infants were or weren't there - we don't know either way - but the continuation of God working in covenant with whole families), children of one believing parent considered set apart, how Christ dealt with and spoke of children, how Hebrews now made sense to us (regarding the apostasy verses) seemed to give further credibility to the fact that the covenant was not now cut off to children of believers. It became clear (to us) that they were considered a part of God's visible church (incidentally, Paul addresses them in Eph. 6:1-3 as church _members_ - see Ephesians 1:1) etc. Now _alone_, none of these supports paedobaptism! But when we looked at the "big picture" (OT and NT, the meaning of circumcision and baptism and the striking similarities in meaning, and of course the CoG), the weight of it was overwhelming to us. We could not deny that our children are considered part of the visible church and covenant members (and as such, recipients of the covenant sign).

HTH some.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 23, 2007)

Great post, Dawn.  Sorry about my typo in that sentence of mine which you quoted. I fixed it.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 23, 2007)

> Now alone, none of these supports paedobaptism! But when we looked at the "big picture" (OT and NT, the meaning of circumcision and baptism and the striking similarities in meaning, and of course the CoG), the weight of it was overwhelming to us. We could not deny that our children are considered part of the visible church and covenant members (and as such, recipients of the covenant sign).



Wow, Dawn, that comes really really close to the very thoughts that we had when my wife and I first wrestled with the baptism of my children. We were both brought up in a Paedo church, but all the same we did not take the baptism of my children lightly. 

I took it into careful consideration with each child, wrestling with the issues for months at a time with each child. The first one ended something like what you said, namely with, "Who now can refuse my child the sign of the covenant?" For I did not confer it, nor was it my decision that the child would be baptized. My question was whether it was right to present my child to the church for baptism, whether that was what God was saying in the Bible. The decision to baptize was solely the church's. But the command to baptize belongs to God. After it was all said and done, and the church claimed my child as its own, the child was no less my child. God's jurisdiction to be the final judge of who is and who is not elect was not at all compromised; the church's jurisdiction to be responsible for ALL those whom God includes was not at all compromised; and our duty and responsibility as mother and father was not at all compromised. No, instead these were all fully acknowledged and respected. 

They (our children) are recipients of God's promise and inclusion in the covenant; and the church's obligation to open and close doors includes the children of the believers. The sacraments are a means of publicly showing the church's inclusion or exclusion: the church can open the doors or close the doors here. And we find nowhere that God has commanded that the doors be closed to the children of believers, which would be a direct and important change from the OT covenant. 

So all this came into play, most of it before our first child was baptized, but more was added to it as we carefully considered each child's baptism. We have eleven children, so we struggled through it eleven times. Each time was a little easier, as we reviewed our past considerations. We tried to be honest to any arguments that were raised against it, which also accumulated over the years. I'm not saying that we were thorough and expert, but only that those very concepts that you stated above were impossible to get around.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 23, 2007)

Jenny,

Glad to hear that some of what I have noted so far is making some sort of sense. I have grown up with this, so it all makes perfect sense to me.




> The promise would be to you and your children as your children would be considered apart of the visible church.
> 
> OH! That is news to me. Is that the usual presbyterian view? That my children are part of the visible church? I thought that is what baptism did: make them part of it.



Lets make sure that we are both on the same page when we talk about the "visible church". I am using the definition that the WCF Chapter 25 uses:



> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]



Here are the Scripture proofs:



> [2] 1CO 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. 1CO 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. PSA 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. REV 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands. ROM 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. 12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
> 
> [3] 1CO 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ACT 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. EZE 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? ROM 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
> 
> ...



Note that the WCF states that the church "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion (*that would mean you*); and of their children (*that would be your children*)." Note that it does not say "and their BAPTIZED children". Baptism does not *make* a child apart of the church nor does it save anyone, God does that. Baptism is the outward sign that acknowledges what is already true, that the child is apart of the visible church. Consider this analogy: children of Isrealites were considered apart of the nation of Isreal because their parents were Isrealites. Children of those who profess Christ are considered apart of the visible church because their parents are apart of the visible church. For the Isrealite child,they were given the sign of inclusion (circumcision) because they already were considered apart of the nation of Israel. Its the same for the child of those who profess Christ. They are given the sign (baptism) because they are already considered apart of the visible church.



> whoop! whoop! Danger Will Robinson! I'm lost again! How is it bolstering the faith of someone who doesn't have it yet? Wouldn't it do more for the faith of someone who has professed it and believes s/he has it? I was baptised as a baby (like I mentioned before) but didn't believe until I was 18. I wasn't baptised (again) until I was 21 because I spent the intervening time trying to understand if I needed to be. In the end, it was a tremendously rewarding thing to experience as a believer and did bolster my faith. My husband was commenting on it tonight, how real the promise of hope and everlasting life was to me after that. It did bolster my faith. I am wanting to see how it would do that for someone who doesn't recall it at all.



(In my best Dr. Smith voice) "Well let me guide you back to the light!" 

For any adult, I am sure the experience is very rewarding and would never look to down play that experience. But is it the sign or what the sign signifies that is the real reward? I was also baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian Church and I certainly don't remember it. But then again, as Christians, we do not walk by sight but by faith and I can look back to that reality and know that I always was apart of the Kingdom of God! And as I grow in faith I can continue to improve upon my baptism, holding fast to the promises made to me when I was an infant! And what did I do to deserve the privilege of being a part of the Kingdom of God? I was just an infant! I certainly could not verbalize any type of profession. But God condescended to include a babbling infant in His Kingdom! 

But for Presbyterians, baptism is a once in a lifetime experience. But now we can have that same rewarding experience as we approach the Lord's Table. There we can experience Christ and what he has done for us until he comes again! We can feed upon the body and blood of our Savior through faith and by the power of God the Holy Spirit! The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is an experience that too few really appreciate or consider!




> But how does that translate into baptism today? Circumcision had the physical scar to correlate with the physical gift of Canaan which was given to all the members of the covenant, believing and unbelieving alike, and was a sign of what was a gift spiritually as well. Baptism seems to have nothing to offer the unbelieving the way being part of the old covenant did and therefore nothing to hold up as a symbol of "you get this physical thing but it is only a shadow of what you can have!"



Unfortunately this post would be longer than it already is if I were to explain Covenant Theology. But in a nutshell, all the various covenants from Noah to to the New Covenant, announced with the advent of Christ, were administrations of the one covenant made in the Garden (Gen 3:15), the promise of a coming Redeemer (Christ). Each particular Covenant was administered differently, but yet pointed to the same thing, the original Covenant of Grace (Gen 3:15). In the above mentioned Abrahamic Covenant, the promise of land was apart of that covenant and was realized, a long time later!, when through the Mosaic Covenant, God established the seed of Abraham, Israel, as a nation and gave them the promised land. The promise of land was a physical gifts as you noted, but as Scripture notes, these older covenants pointed to something greater.

Now under the administration of the New Covenant the offer is made to all, just like the Israelites, reprobate or elect, that we can inherit the Kingdom of God as fellow heirs with Christ! When Christ returns we will realize that with the new heavens and new earth! That's a whole lot better than a chunk of property in the Middle East! But as Scripture notes, many are called but few are chosen.



> Another alarm going off! How does that fit the "sanctifying the unbelieving spouse" part? I will eat my hat if you tell me honestly that the unbelieving spouse can be baptised without a profession, too.



You don't need to eat your hat (unless it looks mighty tasty). One area regarding baptism that both Presbyterians and Baptist agree on is that all adults must make a credible profession of faith in order to be baptised.

I am sure that you are aware that when this verse talks about "sanctifying" it is not talking about "sanctification" via the Holy Spirit. 



> Everyone sees some distinction betwixt the covenants, yes? The Sabbath changed to the first day of the week, the Comforter coming, preaching to the Gentiles, and more. The Old and New aren't identical in every way, even Presbyterians would agree to that. So we have a distinction between whether the new covenant is the same as the visible church. Credos would say it is not. We would say it is the same as the invisible church. But we both believe there is a visible and an invisible and that the invisible is saved people, though none of us claims to know for sure who is truly part of the invisible. I'm starting to see this in algebraic terms, but that got me into trouble before, so I'm going to stop here before I get into trouble again!



Yes we do see distinctions between the various administrations of the various covenants.

The New Covenant is not the same as the Visible Church! They are not synonyms. The New Covenant is the final administration of the Covenant of Grace (the coming of the promised Redeemer announced in Gen 3:15). 

You noted that Old Testament saints were saved just like New Testament saints and even saints of today! They had to repent and believe, which are the stipulations of the Covenant of Grace, as they looked forward to the coming Messiah just as we repent and believe and look back to the cross. And the offer to repent and believe is made to all within earshot, not knowing who is elect or reprobate. Those who do meet the stipulations of the Covenant of Grace (and there children!), whether with a true or false profession, are now apart of the Visible Church. Remember that the Invisible Church intersects the Visible Church at the elect!



> You are so great Wayne! What a star! I really appreciate your time and replies! Thanks a bunch! (how many exclamations can I get in here?)



Yes Jenny this is true, but my humility stops me from acknowledging it myself. But I'm glad it hasn't stopped you!


----------



## jenney (Feb 23, 2007)

I think I understand finally. That bit about faith helps me get the last bit. 

There are still inconsistencies of practice that confuse me and the actual means of grace that baptism is still escapes me because the paedo position seems to make it a means of grace to the spectators, not to the recipient (because the recipient can't tell it apart from a dry baby dedication unless there is some mystical power associated with it) and other small things (do you baptise your servants? Grown children? And what do you do if they don't ever profess? What do you do if they _do_?)

But basically I think I get it now. I don't agree because I can't see Jeremiah 31 the same way you do, but think I understand your basic position at least. I think.

thank you very much for the time and patience, Wayne, David and Dawn. You've borne with me quite kindly!

~jenney


----------



## Davidius (Feb 24, 2007)

jenney said:


> I think I understand finally. That bit about faith helps me get the last bit.
> 
> There are still inconsistencies of practice that confuse me and the actual means of grace that baptism is still escapes me because the paedo position seems to make it a means of grace to the spectators, not to the recipient (because the recipient can't tell it apart from a dry baby dedication unless there is some mystical power associated with it) and other small things (do you baptise your servants? Grown children? And what do you do if they don't ever profess? What do you do if they _do_?)
> 
> ...


----------

