# The BCO and it's wording on Infant Baptism



## Beloved (Aug 9, 2005)

I was talking to a friend the other day about baptism of infants at our PCA church. It is clearly stated each time that our church baptises infants as covenant members of our church. 

The following words are spoken to the parents and congregation:

1. Do you acknowledge your child´s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?

2. Do you claim God´s covenant promises in (his) behalf, and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for (his) salvation, as you do for your own?

3. Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavor to set before (him) a godly example, that you will pray with and for (him), that you will teach (him) the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God´s appointment, to bring (him) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

To the congregation (optional):

Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?

And this is done at an infant baptism. No more words, really, are read or questions asked.

But in the BCO, previous to these questions, it states several of the following, making no distinction about the baptism being infant or child/adult profession of faith baptism:

c. That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies 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;

d. That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies 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;


Now. To my friend, reading these words, it looked like the BCO supports that infants who are baptized are considered full members and "saved", their sins being washed away.

I am trying to figure out how to explain to her that the PCA does not believe that infant baptism saves children, but that it baptises them into the covenant, and later on after they have professed faith and been examined by the elders, then they come forward to make a public confession and are baptised.

Can anyone help me here? I have spent my free time this morning looking through the forums on the subject of baptism and paedobaptism and stuff, but I could not find anything that addressed what the BCO said.

I appreciate any guidance or references on this. My husband is away on business and I'm sure could easily point me in the right direction... but I wanted an answer more quickly than he could provide!


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 9, 2005)

Jeni,

It is important to remember that the signification does not always accompany the thing signified at the same time.

You have hit upon an area of importance - the crucial difference between noncommuning and communing members. That is why in my estimation paedocommunion views lead very often to abberant views on regeneration and justification.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 9, 2005)

Chapter 28 of the WCF on Baptism should clear up your questions:




> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2005)

Jeni,
Baptism points toward that which God has already accomplished. Placing the sign on the infant is not what makes them a covenant child. We place the sign upon them BECAUSE they are covenant children. God commands, hence it is done. 

Surely, the rite itself does not regenerate; however, it does point to that which God has promised. Speaking for myself, I have faith that Gods promises are true; in that I will trust and have faith. It is men whom are faithless. 

It is not presbyterian thinking to look for experience or events; our children are to be raised as Christians, because, that is exactly what they are. 

Rebaptisms are not biblical!

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Poimen (Aug 9, 2005)

Great answers Fred and Scott!

We struggle with this question in our (Dutch) Reformed circles too Jeni. The most common error is to attribute what baptism signifies to every person who is baptized. 

We have to remember that the blessings which baptism signifies (regeneration and the forgiveness of sins) are not tied to the rite of baptism but are given by God to whom He desires, when He desires. At the same time, as Scott mentioned, we trust in God's promises to the child that these things are true of them for God in His covenant embraces the children of believers. 

But remember that a sacrament also cuts both ways: it stands for salvation and it also stands for condemnation. Pharoah and his hosts perished in the Red Sea while Israel was saved; the world drowned in the flood while Noah and his family escaped. Similarly some were sick and fell asleep when they unworthily partook of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:30). 

A sacrament's efficacy depends upon the believing or unbelieving response of the one who receives it. If a child embraces Christ by faith (at whatever age) that sacrament is a blessing to them. If a child rejects Christ through unbelief then it is to their condemnation.

I believe it is helpful to contemplate what the Belgic Confession, Article 35 says at this point: 

"Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified nevertheless both are not received by all men. The ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he does not receive the truth of the sacrament, even as Judas and Simon the sorcerer both indeed received the sacrament but not Christ who was signified by it, of whom believers only are made partakers."

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 17, 2005)

> It is not presbyterian thinking to look for experience or events; our children are to be raised as Christians, because, that is exactly what they are.



You hit that one right on the head. That's one of the first things I realized as I became more and more on the infant/covenant side. It changed our thinking radically, still does, especially behind my/our prayers altogether. At the end of the day it has strengthened my faith and hope (expectation).

L


----------



## Poimen (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> > It is not presbyterian thinking to look for experience or events; our children are to be raised as Christians, because, that is exactly what they are.
> ...



I was wondering about this statement that Scott made for some time and I was hoping he (you Scott) could explain it. 

I agree that they our covenant children are to be raised as Christians but would you say that they all are? It seems to me that you would end up defining a Christian as having two different definitions (a la D. Wilson in "Reformed Is Not Enough"). Do we really want to say a Christian is one who has simply been baptized? Or do I misunderstand you here?

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 32

Q. But why are you called a Christian?
A. Because by faith I am a member of Christ [1] and thus a partaker of His anointing,[2] in order that I also may confess His Name,[3] may present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him,[4] and with a free conscience may fight against sin and the devil in this life,[5] and hereafter in eternity reign with Him over all creatures.[6]

1. Acts 11:26; I John 2:20, 27
2. Acts 2:17
3. Mark 8:38
4. Rom. 12:1; Rev. 5:8, 10; I Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6
5. I Tim. 1:18-19
6. II Tim. 2:12; Eph. 6:12; Rev. 3:21


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Beloved_
> But in the BCO, previous to these questions, it states several of the following, making no distinction about the baptism being infant or child/adult profession of faith baptism:
> 
> c. That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies 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;
> ...



To bring this thread back to its beginnings, (though the other discussion is fruitful!) I think all that needs to be done, as Fred pointed out, is that your friend should be directed to the language in the BCO again - it says "signifies" in each case - salvation is "signified", the cleansing from sin is "signified". There must always be retained a distinction between the sign (baptism) and the thing signified (salvation). Careful reading of the words there helps a lot, I think. 

Your friend also should understand that when we baptize converts, we don't argue that the baptism has any other meaning than this self-same signification. The salvation and cleansing from sin that are brought through the covenant are signified in the sign of entrance into the covenant community. Convert or covenant child, there is no real distinction to be made - and the BCO reflects this.


----------



## Scott (Aug 23, 2005)

Below is a short entry from Sproul Jr.'s website, which I think is appropriate.




> *Repent and Believe*
> 
> There may well be any number of arguments against the doctrine of covenant succession. Perhaps the recent release of To You and Your Children, a compilation of essays on that theme put together by Ben Wickner and published by Canon Press (and with a foreword by the present writer) will prompt someone to make some of those arguments. My limited focus today is not to make the case for or against covenant succession, but instead to answer one rather silly objection.
> 
> ...


----------

