# 1976 CRC "Service of Baptism" - Any Paedo Defenders?



## smhbbag (Oct 7, 2005)

*1976 CRC \"Service of Baptism\" - Any Paedo Defenders?*

Here are the relevant portions, with some points of concern highlighted.



> Second, *baptism is a sign and seal that our sins are washed away through Jesus Christ*. For this reason we are baptized into the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Our baptism into the name of God the Father is his assurance to us that he makes an everlasting covenant of grace with us and adopts us as his children and heirs. Therefore, he surrounds us with his goodness and protects us from evil or turns it to our profit.
> 
> ...




Now, I really want to read this with as much grace as possible. So instead of blasting away from the start, I'll just ask questions of those who do not view this statement as rank heresy (and I assume there are some, since we have CRC ministers here).

1) Does this leave any room whatsoever for a properly-baptized individual to be anything but saved? That is, does it acknowledge the possibility of a baptized covenant member being non-elect? If so, _where_ in the text is this allowed for?

2) If the answer to 1 is 'yes,' and this doesn't teach that all the properly baptized are guaranteed salvation (a big if), then how is that non-elect individual "assured by Christ Himself that He washes us in his blood from all our sins" by virtue of his baptism?

This is NOT a paedo/credo issue. Do NOT debate the validity of paedobaptism here. This thread is for the analysis of this statement to determine what, in fact, it teaches. I am after the author's original intent in 1566, but moreso the intent of the CRC as they adopted this updated translation of that statement. 

Basically, I'd like one solid reason that I can grasp onto in order to not charge the CRC with teaching outright heresy on this point. But if it says what I thought it did, after my first (and second, and tenth) readings of the text....the there is no other label possible. In every possible light I can think of reading it, it denies the gospel. 

I know of more than one Reformed Presbyterian who has come into contact with this and has been _outraged_. And rightly so, In my humble opinion. 

So please, someone explain how all of those descriptions of baptism do not, in actuality, give a guarantee of salvation to the recipient. Gracias.

Oh, the entire text can be found here: http://www.crcna.org/whatweoffer/resources/synodical/liturgy/baptism76b.asp


[Edited on 10-8-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 8, 2005)

I notice you failed to quote the part where the addresses of this form are stated:



> Congregation of our Lord Jesus Christ:
> What the Lord has revealed to us in his Word about holy baptism can be summarized in this way:
> First, Scripture teaches that we and our children are sinners from birth, sinful from the time our mothers conceived us (Ps. 51:5). This means that we are all under the judgment of God and for that reason cannot be members of his kingdom unless we are born again. Baptism, whether by immersion or sprinkling, teaches that sin has made us so impure that we must undergo a cleansing which only God can accomplish. Therefore, we ought to be displeased with ourselves, humble ourselves, and turn to God for our salvation.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 8, 2005)

In the nature of liturgical forms, things get omitted or are assumed. The time has probably arrived for us (in my case, URCNA) to make our forms more explicit.

The chief unstated assumption through the entire form is that the blessings of the covenant of grace are received by grace alone, through faith alone. 

If one reads this form or others like it, it might sound as if baptism works ex opere operato (by the working, it is worked), but that is not the intent of the form. 

The other difficulty that sometimes occurs in our forms is that we do not distinguish clearly in what way baptism is a seal. 

A seal can either be a promise of what will be true under certain circumstances or a guarantee of what is now actually true, the circumstances (or conditions) having been met. 

So, when the sign and seal is administered to a covenant child, the seal is a promise of what will be true for the child when he believes. 

To one who has made a credible profession of faith, the seal is a guarantee that what baptism signifies is really true of the baptized. 

This should alleviate the major difficulties.

rsc



> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> Here are the relevant portions, with some points of concern highlighted.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Oct 10, 2005)

I'll post here what I have written about the Form on another occasion; perhaps this will be helpful.

The form is addressing believers (of all ages) not the child (for the child, obviously cannot hear: or at least we have no knowledge of this). So the form is read for us believers to see the sign and seal applied to another to remind us and assure us of our salvation by faith in Christ. For example: "œAnd although our children do not understand these things"¦" Form for the Baptism of Infants page 85. They are "œheirs of the kingdom of God and of His covenant; and as they grow up, the parents shall be bound to give them further instruction in these things." Isn´t that why the subjunctive voice is used in the prayer? "œwe beseech Thee that Thou wilt be pleased of Thine infinite mercy, graciously to look upon these Thy children and incorporate them by Thy Holy Spirit into Thy Son Jesus Christ, that they may be buried with Him through baptism into death, may joyfully bear their cross"¦" The first part of the form is repeated here in reference to the children, that is the three principal parts of what baptism signifies. We are asking God to do these things for our children, and we entrust them to His grace. Again, they are special; they are His children (all of them in a covenantal administration sense). To them belongs: "œthe adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Romans 9:2) Thus I think that the form uses the objective viewpoint to magnify God´s promises of the covenant (our children, after all, are special; covenantally holy cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14). 

The Form along with BC Article 34 assumes the salvation of our covenant children without asserting that is the case for each and every one of them. By way of analogy, Q&A 37 of the Heidelberg Catechism says that Jesus "œbore the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race." I don´t assume here that the catechism means to tell us, anymore than 1 John 2:2, that Jesus died for each and every single person who ever lived; rather it means to express the scope and universal breadth of the atonement without application to each and every living person. So with the Reformers we have a presumptive salvation but not an actual salvation for all who are in the covenant, and certainly not through or with or by the water!

And, at this point, I am reminded of the Reformed understanding of sacraments: confirming and supporting our faith; pointing us to Jesus Christ and Him crucified "“ we receive these things by faith and baptism helps us to understand and further appreciate the significance of this. Without faith the baptism will be condemnation for the child (something I think we would agree with). But in my understanding it would not be because they are actually saved and then lose it out of unbelief but because they rejected that salvation offered to them in the form of a promise. This does make them more responsible than your "˜average´ pagan but not any more justified.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by poimen]


----------

