# Westminster Directory on Baptism: Infants as 'Christians'



## Romans922 (Oct 18, 2011)

My question is how are we to interpret the following (esp. the bolded) in light or in distinction to how the Federal Vision use this part of the directory:


Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing,
"That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, _For of such is the kingdom of God:_ That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: *That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized*: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had."


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Oct 18, 2011)

probably no different than the person who responds in faith to the gospel. They are considered federally holy without baptism, yet, are to be baptized....


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Oct 18, 2011)

As it says, the "virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered..." which rejects the notion of automatic baptismal regeneration which the FV's seem to teach (at least the way I read them). However, there is a fine line between holding to a form of presumptive regeneration and accepting automatic baptismal regeneration. The thought is that if we assume that children are Christians and thus treat them as such, then we are tacitly admitting that by virtue of being born into the church and having been baptized, they are regenerated. It seems that the directory does not want to posit automatic regeneration, but the question is, is our perception of children and how we deal with them belie the automatic regenerative position although we say we believe in the presumptive position?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 18, 2011)

The incorrect view would be that the children are Christians in *every sense* of that word, or in *every meaningful sense*.

But it should be obvious that this is a tremendous error. It would be a tremendous error if we said the same thing about an adult member.

Given proper discipline present in the church where they are members in good standing, they are Christians in every way it is possible to judge from an earthly perspective. But it is manifest that old or young, it is absurd to say (for example) that by virtue of their attachment (by personal profession of faith or by parental profession, and baptism) that every one has his election, and his justification, etc. These are the most meaningful sorts of propositions we can say about Christians, but clearly it is beyond propriety to say they have particular-Christian truth value, by virtue of baptism and church membership.


The youngest children, as well as a new adult convert, may well not understand justification or election--not in the way they DO understand "Jesus loves me." But we expect certain things from certain people, and not from others. The child who only knows, and believes, "Jesus loves me," exhibits as much Christian faith as we might expect from someone that age. It is fitting to call such people "Christians" or "Christian children." But that child's baptism or his song are not any sort of basis for affirming that the child is "elect." Nor is it right to say that the objective or subjective signs applied to or observed from a person establish the fact of "some kind" of election or justification, which may be _temporary_ if this person falls away.

Temporary? But the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Election and baptism (or circumcision) have never lined up perfectly. Apostates weren't beneficiaries of all the saving benefits of Christ at some point... before they lost them! They were attracted to them; they dallied with them; they enjoyed the blessed context in which those benefits are exhibited--but they went out that they might be made manifest that none of them were of us. Had they been of us, they would have continued with us. Ergo, when they were "with us," they still weren't "of us" (cf. 1Jn.2:19). I don't know how John could be any clearer.

The common life of Christ (through union) is the very glue that holds us to him and to one another. So, if someone is united to Christ and then he isn't, we all (and Christ) have lost something forever. This is completely out of accord with Scripture. "This is the will of the Father that sent me, that of all he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (Jn.6:39). In Jesus' prayer, Jn.17, the ultimacy and finality of union with Christ is spelled out even more plainly. There, just to make sure that the case of Judas Iscariot doesn't threaten the paradigm, his association with Jesus receives unique qualification (v12).


We call things as we see them. We can't really do otherwise. We call people in the church--even under its strong forms of discipline--Christians. Those who are thrust out of it are divested of the name. But we don't talk about the possessions of saving faith as if it were possible for them to exist apart from saving faith. The elect have (eventually) saving faith and all the blessings of eternal salvation. This is one-for-one. Those who never have saving faith--but a temporary faith, which is not a divine gift--are not elect (not even temporarily), and do not participate in the spiritual administration of salvation through union with Christ. This all comes back to the difference between being in the covenant of Grace under both an internal and external administration, and being in it under only the external administration.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 18, 2011)

They are non-communicant members of the Christian Church, and therefore Christians. Whether they're believers or not is a different matter.

Not all Israelites were Israelites indeed, and not all Christians are Christians indeed.



> Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" (John 1:47, ESV)


----------



## bookslover (Oct 22, 2011)

This gets back to honing in on exactly why we baptize infants. Since we acknowledge that neither baptismal regeneration nor presumptive regeneration is true, then why, exactly, do we baptize them? 

A person is not a Christian until he exercises faith in Christ - which takes, among other things, the possibility of a certain level of intellectual understanding. The Reformed have reasons for baptizing infants, but "they are Christians" isn't one of them.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 22, 2011)

bookslover said:


> A person is not a Christian until he exercises faith in Christ - which takes, among other things, the possibility of a certain level of intellectual understanding. The Reformed have reasons for baptizing infants, but "they are Christians" isn't one of them.



Historically and Biblically, "Christian" normally refers to a member of the visible church. It is exactly the reason we baptize infants. However, "they are presumed regenerate" isn't one of the reasons. I realize this is a semantic disagreement, but I think semantics are important.


----------

