# Are baptized covenant children more likely to believe in Christ than non-baptized?



## Pergamum

Are baptized covenant children more likely to believe in Christ than non-baptized children who are raised faithfully in Baptist churches? 


What is the difference? What does baptism add that Christian nurture does not? What exactly that baptism "do" then that Christian teachign does not?

Anyone ever do a survey to compare the statistics?


----------



## Herald

Pergy, I can't cite statistics, but I don't believe a correlation can be made between baptized children being more likely to come to faith in Christ viz. children who are not baptized. Why? Because baptism doesn't save. It is a sign only. A child that is exposed to a faithful Gospel witness stands a far greater likelihood of believing as opposed to a child who is not exposed to the Gospel. Paedo and Credo disagreements aside, diligent Christian parents will raise their children in the light of the Gospel.


----------



## Tim

May I ask the question in a slightly different way?

Do paedo-baptists believe that 1) the application of the sign to infants, and 2) the understanding of that sign that is then communicated to the child throughout the years of child rearing...is an environment (or whatever word you like) that is more likely to be blessed by God and more likely to result in the salvation of those children?

Feel free to re-word my question if needed. Pergy, is this at all helpful in re-articulating your original question?


----------



## jogri17

I believe the answer, from personal experience, is no. That is because the child in the credo baptist environment is usually in fact treated like he was baptized. I would argue that things like Sunday school (modern day catechism), VBSs, and youth groups exist in baptists because there is a clear sense of responsibility for the children beyond just as ''gifts of God'' within baptists, they just don't want to admit that in some sense they are apart of the Church's visible administration. I thank God for my baptist friend's inconsistency on this one!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

"Just as the preaching of the Word is a means of grace for all the elect (Rom. 10:17), while bringing further condemnation on the wicked reprobate by leaving them further without excuse (Matt. 11:20-30; II Cor. 2:14-17), so too are the sacraments of *the Holy Supper and Baptism*. *Only those who are of faith receive any gracious benefits from these *(and they do, since these illustrate, instruct, and direct us by faith to the realities which they signify and seal to us, when we see a baptism, or receive the Lord's Supper), while the rest, the ungodly hypocrites who do not believe receive just judgment (John 6:48-64; Heb. 10:29; Prov. 30:12; Rom. 2:28-29). In this manner, *they are signs and seals to all the believers *(*and them alone*) – further reason to diligently attend baptism services. The view that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are nothing but fleshy symbols cannot be accepted. We know that Christ does not ordain practices in His church which are vain or of no avail to us (such would be mere symbols), but that indeed all things work for our good, and that especially in the church, every part is designed to be edification for us. Knowing too then that, “the flesh profiteth nothing”, we are assured that Christ works powerfully and spiritually by these means, as He does through the preaching of the Word, but again, to reiterate, as the wonders in Egypt made a difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites (cursing the former, and blessing the latter), we know that the wonders worked now in these foolish things that the world scoffs at (I Cor. 1:18-21), also make a difference (cursing the hypocrites, and blessing the believers)."
- Samuel Watterson


----------



## Phil D.

Short answer: No. 

Salvation is ultimately dependent on God's sovereign, electing grace. Salvation is of faith, and faith comes from hearing the Word of God. All children who are raised in a faithful Christian home/church will thus be exposed to the primary means of grace that God uses to engender saving faith, whether they have been baptized or not.


----------



## Jack K

More likely to believe and come to faith? I wouldn't want to say that. Even if we were to assume that as a paedobaptist I am more right then those who aren't, to say this means my kids are more likely to be saved would be presuming that God's saving grace is greater towards those families that have their theological practices more right. A child's baptism only beneifts that child if he is elect.

But are baptized children more encouraged in the faith at a younger age? More strengthened to live godly lives? Do they have a greater assurance? Are they more certain of their inclusion among God's covenant people? Do they have ammunition to fire at the devil when he accuses them of being unloved by God? As a paedobaptist I say "yes." And it seems to me that my experiences ministering to both Presbyterian and Baptist kids may back this up. Okay, it may have to do with a larger mindset present in the particular churches rather than just the baptism issue, but the Baptist kids I've worked with are typically less sure of their salvation, more burdened by a need to prove themselves saved, and harder to encourage with the gospel.

In addition, the Baptist parents too are less likely to look to God's claim on their child's life as their hope for the kid's salvation. So baptizing babies also encourages the whole church to trust in God's grace to families and to approach the Christian nuture of children with confidence rather than insecurity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell

None of us can presume upon God's grace for our children. But it's possible that credo-baptist raise their children somewhat differently and that can have an effect. If you assume that your child is an unbeliever until he/she makes a profession of faith, won't that even subtly come through in your dealings with that child? Our children are constantly told: you are a covenant child you must believe and act as one who is recognizing the terms of that covenant. It's not a choice.


----------



## Herald

There truly is a systemic misunderstanding on the part of paedobaptists on how credobaptists raise their children. Our children are raised in the light of the Gospel. No one - paedobaptist or credobaptist - has insight into the hidden things of God. God calls all children who come to faith through the agency of the Holy Spirit. We may believe each other to be in error when it comes to baptism, but lets not make the mistake of presuming upon the likelihood of children being saved in paedo or credo families.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think the question is somewhat misplaced.

I venture that the real question for consideration is the faithfulness of a church (any church) to the gospel. The only relevant question, it seems to me, is: where may one find a faithful church, that passes that faith along to the next generation?

If American history teaches us anything regarding faithfulness in different "types" of churches, it is that baptist-type churches are certainly _no different_ (because of their standards for membership) in maintaining the gospel within them, than the majority infant-baptizing churches of the previous centuries, being more than capable of losing it just as much. Certainly, they aren't any _better_ at retaining it.

My personal, anecdotal assessment is, that gospel-driven baptist churches are no more or less represented in the whole pie than another slice (be it a Reformed, a Lutheran, etc); and overall, therefore, represent the same minority position they have occupied since the Reformation era. Regionally, this representation will probably vary considerably.

Here's what I think is better about the "gospel-question." It forces us to ask where the best, most robust defense of the heart-and-soul of Christianity is. If it didn't exist anyplace other than a Baptist-church down the road, THAT'S where ALL the serious Christians belong. I don't care what one thinks about baptism. If there aren't any other choices where the gospel is preached, and no prospects for a Reformed church, then GET IN that church. Don't try to change it's stance on baptism either. I don't think, in general, that's the simple Christian's job. That's Christ's purview, and he'll see to that area (whatever way it needs).

Now, when you take all the gospel churches of the Reformed, the Lutheran, the Baptist, and any others--I'm talking about the churches that actually hold to an historic, Christian faith of some kind; not just a church with one of those words in the name, or "Bible" church, or etc.--take all those churches, and ask of each if they are succeeding in passing on the deposit of faith to the rising generation. If it doesn't look like they are doing a very good job, then check into a sister church, or a different denomination until you find one that is. Personally, I want my family to be a part of a church that is, in fact, seeing this Abrahamic promise realized, "...to be God to you *and to your descendants after you*."


----------



## Pergamum

Tim said:


> May I ask the question in a slightly different way?
> 
> Do paedo-baptists believe that 1) the application of the sign to infants, and 2) the understanding of that sign that is then communicated to the child throughout the years of child rearing...is an environment (or whatever word you like) that is more likely to be blessed by God and more likely to result in the salvation of those children?
> 
> Feel free to re-word my question if needed. Pergy, is this at all helpful in re-articulating your original question?


 
I think that this is probably a fair re-working. In short, if the local church and the parents strive to raise the child in a Christian environment, what then does infant baptism (that the child cannot remember) add?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I think there is a false, unstated premise, in the question. Put the question this way: 



> "We're circumcised children in the typological administration of the covenant of grace more likely to come to faith?"



Embedded in the question is assumed knowledge about the secret providence of God. We're not allowed to ask about God's secret providence (Deut 29:29). We're commanded to submit to his Word and we're called to trust his promises: 



> "I will be a God to you and to your children after you."



Should covenant families expect their covenant children to come to faith? Yes. We baptize them, i.e., we initiate them into the covenant of grace with the expectation that they will come to faith but we do not believe or practice baptism _ex opere_. We're not papists and we're not federal visionists (some of whom have described their view of baptismal union with Christ as an _ex opera_ (_sic_) view. 

We regard our baptized children as Christians, i.e., as members of the visible covenant community who have been rightly initiated into the covenant of grace, who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, who receive Christian instruction, who hear the ministry of the Word (the means of grace), who are catechized, and who, if they fail to make profession of faith after catechesis are disciplined.

Remember, in Reformed theology there are two ways of being in the one covenant of grace.

For more on this see:

*The Bookstore @ Westminster Seminary California &mdash; Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace*

See also:

*Westminster Seminary California*

and

*Resources on Infant Baptism « Heidelblog*


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for the links Dr Clark. 

But if we are to trust in the promises of God about baptized children, then it sems there should be some tangible results, moreso than simple Christian nurture would produce. 

If we god-fearing but erring baptists are depriving our children of these blessings of baptism, why is it that I see children in Christian homes growing up to serve Christ in roughly the same numbers, those baptized as infants and those unbaptized? 

Why is it that Christian nurture seems to be the main factor and baptism inconsequential if my disobedience is so great at not baptizing my children as infants?


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask the question in a slightly different way?
> 
> Do paedo-baptists believe that 1) the application of the sign to infants, and 2) the understanding of that sign that is then communicated to the child throughout the years of child rearing...is an environment (or whatever word you like) that is more likely to be blessed by God and more likely to result in the salvation of those children?
> 
> Feel free to re-word my question if needed. Pergy, is this at all helpful in re-articulating your original question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is probably a fair re-working. In short, if the local church and the parents strive to raise the child in a Christian environment, what then does infant baptism (that the child cannot remember) add?
Click to expand...

 
It might be helpful to understand that baptism is done basically because of the faith of at least one believing parent to begin with.

That child is set apart to a position of privilege having both
1) at least one believing parent
2) a community of believers
through which the ordinary means of grace come.

Upon the sacrament, to signify this, the congregation also often takes a vow to assist in raising the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

Additionally, the theology is that actual grace attends the sacrament (not necessarily salvific grace, but God's unmerited favor).

As to your observation that children in the church seem to serve the Lord as much as those who were not raised in the church, if that is what you are saying...

Of course, that is anecdotal, subjective.

That is not at all the case I have observed and I don't see that as the pattern generally anywhere. Children come the Lord (God using means) by two main ways, in this order:

1) immediate family
2) friend

It is much more ordinary for a child who has been raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord to evidence, profess Christianity than one without.

It's certainly not a guarantee, and there are plenty of exceptions.

But something beyond mere words and attendance are at work in believers, in His church, in the sacraments... something more.

That's why is does tend to make a difference and become more obvious over time.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott, thanks for your words. Yes, if baptism is not a mere outward sign and grace actually is given during baptism, then there IS, indeed, something more. And I would guess that that "something more" would be discernible and visible apart from the advantages of Christian nurture.


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> Scott, thanks for your words. Yes, if baptism is not a mere outward sign and grace actually is given during baptism, then there IS, indeed, something more. And I would guess that that "something more" would be discernible and visible apart from the advantages of Christian nurture.


 
Yes, and we might say the "something more" becomes more discernible _through_ the Christian nurture (both by parent and covenant community).

Also, the vows attendant at baptism, are taken as an ordinance of worship, and as these (oaths) are considered also "worship" biblically prescribed, something is happening also with the vows (both by parents and congregation).

Add to that the powerful testimonies often given at baptism of how one or more in the family came to be a Christian.

Powerful, spiritually so.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Scott, thanks for your words. Yes, if baptism is not a mere outward sign and grace actually is given during baptism, then there IS, indeed, something more. And I would guess that that "something more" would be discernible and visible apart from the advantages of Christian nurture.



I honestly believe this is dangerous thinking. Baptism has its defined role. That role is not to make a child more apt to come to faith. If a child comes to faith in Christ it is because they have heard, understood, and believed the Gospel. Christian parents, if they are fulfilling their parental obligations, are teaching their children the Gospel. They are also exposing them to the Gospel witness at church and when fellowshipping with other Christian families. I suppose a paedobaptist parent can use their child's baptism as a means of declaring the Gospel (the substance behind baptism), but it is still the Gospel that saves. Credobaptist parents are no less diligent in presenting a Gospel witness to their children. To claim that some sort of grace is given during baptism that increases the chances that a child will come to faith is without scriptural warrant. _Baptism is a sign and only a sign_. It is not the substance. If I sound like a broken record it's because I see the logical conclusion of believing that baptized infants have a "leg up" on children who are not baptized. That conclusion is a de facto trust in baptism instead of the Gospel. I am not accusing my paedobaptist brethren on the PB of holding to that view. I am saying that if we see more in baptism than what the ordinance contains we run the risk of conflating it with the exclusive work of the Spirit in salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

James Bannerman says of the baptized infant that he:



> bears about with him, in virtue of his Baptism, a right of property in the promises of his God; and laying his hand upon that right, and pleading it with God in faith, he may add to it the right of possession, and so enter into the full enjoyment of salvation that he requires for his soul.



_The Church of Christ, Volume 1, 115._


But I STILL don't see what a baptized infant has that an unbaptized infant does not have, since faith is the key ingredient and since the intentional nurture of Christian parents and church is the best way to teach the child that faith (the child being wholly forgetful of his own baptism since it was done as an infant). 

It appears to me that baptism "does" nothing unless accompanied by the faith of the recipient.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Once more:

The question is properly not "what is the outcome?" Only God knows what the outcome _actually_ is. We only see the profession. Obviously not all those who make profession of faith are actual believers, hence Paul's distinction between those who are members of the covenant of grace externally only and those who are also members internally.

The question is: what has God commanded? The question: Is: what has God promised? 

As to the benefits, we should neither understate nor overstate. Baptism is a divinely instituted sign and seal of the divine promise. It is not magic but it, like the Supper, a means of grace, the gospel made visible. 

Thus we confess in the WCF that "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time." (28.6)

So, there is great blessing in the administration of the covenant of grace.


----------



## Phil D.

Pergamum said:


> It appears to me that baptism "does" nothing unless accompanied by the faith of the recipient.



If by "does nothing" you mean in an inward, spiritual sense, I'd say you're in pretty good company. 

Westminster Shorter Catechism 

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit *in them that by faith receive them.*

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied *to believers*.


----------



## Pergamum

If God has promised something, shouldn't we see a tangible result from that promise?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

P,

The desire to see something, the order of what you suggest, is tantamount to rationalism. You've set up an _a priori _ test. Whence the test? Does scripture suggest that there's some correlation between covenant initiation and, e.g., regeneration? The command to initiate covenant children was not correlated to any particular outcome.


----------



## Pergamum

Phil D. said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that baptism "does" nothing unless accompanied by the faith of the recipient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by "does nothing" you mean in an inward, spiritual sense, I'd say you're in pretty good company.
> 
> Westminster Shorter Catechism
> 
> Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
> A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit *in them that by faith receive them.*
> 
> Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
> A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied *to believers*.
Click to expand...

 



---------- Post added at 07:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 AM ----------

If God's covenant promise is that He would be the God of believers and their physical children, then His is not much of a promise. 

A great many covenant children go astray. Even 1/4th defection of covenant children would besmirch the promise-keeping of God if we are to count the promise to include the physical seed of believers.

If covenant children do not *all* belong to God, then God is unfaithful to His covenant promise if he is to be the God of believers and their physical children. 

Only a reformed Baptist view of the New Covenant where all the members of the new covenant, from the least to the greatest know the Lord, would keep God from being a liar.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

????
Surely you jest, Pergy. God wasn't a "liar" when he promised Abraham to "be God to you and to your descendants after you," and still many of them defected from Jehovah.

It's the very charge, that is raised against Paul in Rom.9. "If God is so true to his promises, and Jesus is the Promise, then why are have so many Jews rejected him? *Then His is not much of a promise.*" Paul points back through redemptive history and says, "Look, this is nothing new, many in Israel have been rejecting this same God-of-their-fathers for generations. _Which fact doesn't impugn God's faithfulness in the least!_ Not all are actually Israel who are "of" Israel (i.e., after the flesh). Which is simply a repetition in different terms (which he is just about to elaborate on, respecting election) of what he already said in ch.2, that a Jew is not a person circumcised in his flesh, but one who is circumcised in heart, whose praise is of God, and not of men.

The only way this allegation can hold any water is if Paul is simply mistaken, and God really did waffle in his promise to Abraham. If modern "objections" start to sound EXACTLY like the objections leveled against Paul, its time to reevaluate. Of course, my reply is going to EXACTLY mirror the statements that Paul makes to his detractors.


----------



## JP Wallace

Herald said:


> To claim that some sort of grace is given during baptism that increases the chances that a child will come to faith is without scriptural warrant. Baptism is a sign and only a sign. It is not the substance.



Herald,

As you can see I'm an RB, but I would be uncomfortable with the way you describe Baptism as being "a sign and only a sign" if by that you mean that there is no grace to be received in the sacrament. Now it could be you just mean that the actions involved in the sacrament do not impart grace in and of themselves _ex opere operato_ i.e. in a Romanist way. With that all here agree. Perhaps you could clarify?

Benjamin Keach writes the following,

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Thus Keach views both the Ls and Baptism as *not* being *merely *signs, but as visible signs that are effectual in the grand scheme of redemption - i.e. grace *is* present (though received and made effectual only by the person's faith and Holy's Spirit ministry respectively). 

Also (Pergamum) I think we must also be fair to our Covenant-baptist friends in this respect (and I think this may go some way forward in answering the OP) - the grace of sacraments may not be effectual at the time of participation, nor even in the near future - in other words the grace of infant-baptism may not be "received" and therefore bear fruit until they are teenagers and by faith seen and truly understand their baptism, or later. Their baptism in other words at infancy in in obedience to God's command, on the covenant continuity view, yet the grace may not "work" until later - that last bit is up to God.

This is stated clearly in the WCF 28:

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time

Now whether we agree with that or not - I think it needs to be factored in to our understanding of Covenant-baptism. In other words there may not be (according to their belief, but in your terms) tangible results immediately after the administration of the sacrament.

If I have misrepresented you my Presbyterian brothers, please feel free to correct me.


----------



## Herald

JP Wallace said:


> Now it could be you just mean that the actions involved in the sacrament do not impart grace in and of themselves ex opere operato i.e. in a Romanist way. With that all here agree. Perhaps you could clarify?



Paul, that is _exactly _what I mean. Baptism is certainly a _means _of grace, but without getting into a credo-paedo debate, baptism does not make one more likely a candidate for salvation. In fact I view baptism as a benefit to our faith. You can read about my view HERE. I am reacting strongly against the notion that baptism somehow increases the likelihood that a child will be saved. That is why I've stated and restated that baptism is a sign, not the substance itself.


----------



## Tim

I wouldn't speak of "increased likelihood of salvation" with regard to God's decree (first cause), but may we not properly use this phrase with regard to a second cause?

If baptism, like other means of grace, such as prayer and preaching, is a secondary cause of salvation, why should we not speak of "increased likelihood"? If we consider the opposite, may we not say that if someone is not exposed at all to the means of grace, they are less likely to be saved?


----------



## Herald

Tim said:


> I wouldn't speak of "increased likelihood of salvation" with regard to God's decree (first cause), but may we not properly use this phrase with regard to a second cause?
> 
> If baptism, like other means of grace, such as prayer and preaching, is a secondary cause of salvation, why should we not speak of "increased likelihood"? If we consider the opposite, may we not say that if someone is not exposed at all to the means of grace, they are less likely to be saved?


 
Tim, well, I'm trying not to be drawn into a credo-paedo debate, but since the only worthy recipients of baptism are believers there is also the issue of scriptural warrant. But even putting our differing baptismal positions aside; which is more likely to result in a convert, baptism or the proclamation of the Gospel? And if you're tempted to say, "The Gospel message is contained in baptism", then you're really answering with "the Gospel."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Herald said:


> And if you're tempted to say, "The Gospel message is contained in baptism", then you're really answering with "the Gospel."


I concur totally with the *equation* presented in this statement.

Pitting baptism against proclamation is ineffective. Baptism doesn't effect conversion. For that matter, preaching doesn't effect conversion either--by which I mean, it is Holy Spirit who effects conversion, and he uses the gospel to do that in the use of ordinary means. But the principal means is preaching, and sacramental means are incomplete means unaccompanied by the Word.

You know, we _keep on preaching and administering sacraments_ to people, because they are for the ongoing work of conversion, when we think of conversion as more than the moment of initial faith-and-repentance that marks the beginning of new life in Christ. Sanctification isn't really a different concept from conversion; conversion actually expresses the transformative nature of what's going on (evil-to-good), whereas sanctification emphasizes the increase of purity, both in quality and quantity.


----------



## Phil D.

As my previous posts here already indicate, I strongly agree with the point that Bill is making here, and believe it is very important to emphasize. But allow my to cite some Reformed paedobaptist sources that clearly say the same thing with respect to how the Word and the sacraments relate to each other (all emphases are added).

_Westminster Confession of Faith_ 

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is *ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word*, by which also, and by the administration of *the sacraments and prayer, it is increased and strengthened*. (14.1)​
In commenting on this article, William Cunningham (1805-61; Scottish Presbyterian) wrote:

*Here the increasing and strengthening of saving faith, previously produced and already existing, is ascribed to the administration of the sacraments*, and of course is predicated equally and alike of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and this incidental, though most explicit, assertion of the principle, *that the sacraments were designed to increase and strengthen saving faith*, shows how familiar the minds of the compilers of the Westminster Confession were with a doctrine, which is now very much ignored by many who profess to follow in their footsteps. (_The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation_, pp.274, 275)​
George Gillespie (1613-48; Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster divine) 

Paraeus [David; 1548–1622; German Reformed] puts this difference between the Word and sacraments: that *the Word is a mean appointed both for beginning and confirming faith—the sacraments means of confirming it after it is begun*: that the Word belongs both to the converted and to the unconverted—the sacraments are intended for those who are converted and do believe, and for none others. (_Aaron’s Rod Blossoming_, p.23)​
Richard Vines (1600-56; English Presbyterian and Westminster divine)

*The Word is the only instrument of God to beget faith, or work conversion*, and there are many expressions of Scripture, tending to prove it…The Word is the great Charter of Gods Covenant; his Covenant is to make us his, to entertain us as his; and so the Word is a seed of our new birth, and the milk or meat of our spiritual growth...Unto this Covenant or Indenture hang two seals, the one seals our engrafting and implanting into Christ, and that is Baptism; the other seals our fellowship with, and building up in Christ, and that is the Lords Supper; the whole Covenant is sealed by both, but respectively the one looking at our first entrance and admission, the other to our progress and consummation. And both the seals are applied only to them that are in Covenant, so by their certioration [being made certain—i.e. assurance] and comfort they are listed into the service of Christ. (_A Treatise of the Institution, Right Administration and Receiving of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper_, p.285;​
Thomas Manton (1620–77; English Presbyterian)

*We must not ascribe that to the sacraments which belongeth to the word. The word is appointed for conversion, as the sacraments for confirmation.* A charter or indenture is first offered, and then sealed when parties are agreed…Frequenting the means is not our qualification, but sound and thorough conversion to God. Faith giveth the title, not the use of ordinances. Again, we must not ascribe that to our conversion which belongeth to the Spirit; our faith and repentance is necessary, but yet it is not of ourselves, but of God, Ephesians 2:8. (_The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, D.D._, 20:304)​
_Second Bohemian Confession_ (1575; Czeck-Hungarian Reformed - and Lutheran!) 

Only through the pure gospel, and the preaching thereof, is faith sowed inwardly in the heart by the Holy Ghost, and from thence also must we conceive and seek the true meaning of God and Christ, touching all things necessary to salvation, and also touching the sacraments themselves…*Then it may be, that thou who hast true faith grafted in thy heart, mayest receive profit by the participation of the sacraments.* (Article 10)​
Thomas Boston (1676-1732; Scottish Presbyterian)

*The sacraments are not converting but confirming ordinances*; they are appointed for the use and benefit of God’s children, not of others; they are given to believers as believers, as Rutherford expresses it, so that none other are subjects capable of the same before the Lord…*Wherefore it remains that they* [the sacraments] *are indeed appointed for confirmation, which doth necessarily suppose the pre-existence of grace in the soul, seeing that which is not cannot be confirmed*. (_Whole Works_, 6:127, 128)​
Francis Turretin (1623–87; Swiss Reformed)

*For the efficacy of a sacrament faith is required, devotion and an internal motion of the mind*, both because the Scriptures expressly assert it (Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 11:27; Acts 2:38) and because without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), and because the promise (which is contained in the sacraments) and faith are correlates. (_Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 19.8.12)​
If these things be so, then regardless of the timing or sequencing of events, baptism only avails to strengthen, seal, and confirm *preexisting* faith. If we believe we are commanded to baptize our covenant children, we must of course do so on that basis. And we know that valuable blessings flow from godly obedience. But we must also be careful not to ascribe to baptism that which it isn't.

Again, salvation is of faith, and faith comes from hearing the Word of God. As such, with regard to the question asked in the OP, all children who are raised in a faithful Christian home/church are exposed to the primary means of grace that God uses to engender saving faith, whether they have been baptized or not. Upon believing and responding to the Word, the further ministry of the Word, their prior or subsequent baptism, their rightful participation in the Lord's Supper, and prayer will then serve to spiritually strengthen their Christian faith. (WCF 14.1)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Pergamum,

You may not want to be dragged into a debate between the Baptist view and the Reformed view but our initial question contains a Baptistic premise. 

Your view wants to identify the decree (election) with the administration of the covenant of grace. In contrast, the Reformed view distinguishes between the decree, which lies behind the administration of the covenant of grace, and the administration of the covenant of grace.

Our sovereign God decrees who will come to faith. As has been said by others in this thread, God uses the administration of the covenant of grace to bring his elect to faith. 

You want to know about probabilities but I can give you absolute certainty! Every single one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died shall come to faith and they shall do so ordinarily through the due use of the ordained means of grace.

Reformed theology teaches both the decree and its administration.


----------



## Pergamum

R. Scott Clark said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> You may not want to be dragged into a debate between the Baptist view and the Reformed view but our initial question contains a Baptistic premise.
> 
> Your view wants to identify the decree (election) with the administration of the covenant of grace. In contrast, the Reformed view distinguishes between the decree, which lies behind the administration of the covenant of grace, and the administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Our sovereign God decrees who will come to faith. As has been said by others in this thread, God uses the administration of the covenant of grace to bring his elect to faith.
> 
> You want to know about probabilities but I can give you absolute certainty! Every single one of those for whom Christ obeyed and died shall come to faith and they shall do so ordinarily through the due use of the ordained means of grace.
> 
> Reformed theology teaches both the decree and its administration.


 
Dr Clark, thanks for that explanation.

I am really trying not to be unkind to the paedo position, but when I look at the covenant promise that God will be a God to His covenant people, and then when paedos make also their physical seed to be part of that covenant people, then either 

(1) God's promises don't count for much because a great many baptized children are not saved, 

(2) or, the paedos have misunderstood who is part of the New Covenant and misunderstand to whom the promises apply.



Also, if we say that the promise is there, if the infant merely (later) appropriates it by faith, then what is the difference between that infants and ALL who hear the Gospel, for the same promise also applies to them? This promise is to you and your children, but no less to "those that are far off." 

If there is something that baptism adds to the physical seed of believers this means that God still favors families and works through the bloodline as the Jews thought, and we should also see clear evidences of this in the results of baptism. Instead, it appears that Christian nurture by family and church are the key ingredients in multi-generational faith and that where this is practiced then the children of believers (whether baptist or paedo) are brought to faith in greater numbers.

If we were to take 100 covenant children who are baptized and 100 unbaptized baptist children, and raise them all in similar environments of Christian nurture, what does baptism add? 

If the key ingredient is that the baptized infant later improves upon his baptism by faith and shows his places in the covenant by his faith, why not wait until there is at least a profession of that faith?


I am comfortable with saying that the physical seed of believers sit "under" the outward administration of the covenant of grace (i.e. they hear the preached Word, and see the ordinances given, etc) but I am still uncomfortable in saying that they are full-fledged members of the covenant.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Pergy*


> what then does infant baptism (that the child cannot remember) add?



Remember that little Jewish boys couldn't remember their circumcision at eight days old and wouldn't understand its meaning until it was explained to them by someone else. They might think that all boys were like that. They wouldn't have begun to understand its meaning in a true spiritual way until they were circumcised in heart by the Holy Spirit. 

_Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.(Deut 10:15-16, ESV) _

The same goes for those who are baptised in infancy. They do not remember it - but God remembers it. They do not know they've been baptised unless they're told and they do not know its meaning unless it is explained to them from Scripture. They do not know its meaning truly and spiritually until they are baptised with the Holy Spirit at regeneration.

_Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.(Deut 10:15-16, ESV)_

Because the Israelites were a physically circumcised people, the anomally of their lack of spiritual circumcision could be pressed on them in a peculiar way. The same can be the case with infants that are baptised in water and are in that sense in the covenant.

You can't say to an infant raised in a baptist home, "Look you've been baptised in water; where is the evidence of your spiritual baptism/regeneration?"

Clearly the baptism of a child that has already been baptised with water and is taught that it is in covenant with God outwardly, legally, formally, etc, can be used with the Word in a different way to a child being brought up in a baptist family and has only seen baptisms of other people.

How much that is used by God is a total mystery. 

Maybe there should be more preaching that brings home the meaning of their baptism to those who are baptised and yet remain possibly/probably unbaptised in heart. Frequent reminders that they've been washed in water remind them in a peculiar way of the covenant privileges, resonsibilities and promises they are neglecting and of the need to seek spiritual cleansing and engrafting into Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and all of His Work. 

Are folks reminded enough even in the better Presbyterian churches?

All talk of increased "chances" on a Calvinist message board are of course ridiculous.

Do we mean increased "chances" speaking humanly, and what does that mean?


----------



## Pergamum

Richard, no we would say, "You are unbaptized because you have not yet professed faith. God's ordinances are only for God's children. Therefore, believe so that you may be baptized."


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you're tempted to say, "The Gospel message is contained in baptism", then you're really answering with "the Gospel."
> 
> 
> 
> I concur totally with the *equation* presented in this statement.
> 
> Pitting baptism against proclamation is ineffective. Baptism doesn't effect conversion. For that matter, preaching doesn't effect conversion either--by which I mean, it is Holy Spirit who effects conversion, and he uses the gospel to do that in the use of ordinary means. But the principal means is preaching, and sacramental means are incomplete means unaccompanied by the Word.
> 
> You know, we _keep on preaching and administering sacraments_ to people, because they are for the ongoing work of conversion, when we think of conversion as more than the moment of initial faith-and-repentance that marks the beginning of new life in Christ. Sanctification isn't really a different concept from conversion; conversion actually expresses the transformative nature of what's going on (evil-to-good), whereas sanctification emphasizes the increase of purity, both in quality and quantity.
Click to expand...


Bruce, I appreciate your participation in this thread. By no means are you compromising your beliefs. However, you defer to the Spirit's role in bringing sinners to new life in Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel. When it comes down to the lowest common denominator it has to be the Gospel. If not the Gospel, what else?


----------



## Mushroom

We don't baptize infants to improve the odds of their election, Pergs. We baptize them in obedience to God. Christians don't choose what to obey and what not based on perceived individual benefit when we're thinking right. You disagree that it is a thing commanded, fine, but I hope you don't think your paedobaptist brethren are such so as to 'stack the deck' in our kids' favor.


----------



## Peairtach

*MacDaddy*


> Richard, no we would say, "You are unbaptized because you have not yet professed faith. God's ordinances are only for God's children. Therefore, believe so that you may be baptized."



I know. I'm just clarifying what Baptists can say in their preaching/teaching to covenant children/children brought up in a Christian household, and what Presbyterians can say, to further tease out your important question.

Thankfully Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians can say a lot of the same things, but there are certain things they can't both say to children or adults who were brought up in Christian homes, because they've got a different theology of the covenant on this issue, and because they will be speaking with different views of infant baptism and to people that may or may not have been baptised as infants.

How significant that is _spiritually_ is the subject of this thread.

I agree with Bruce that I'd rather children go to a Reformed Baptist Church where the Gospel was preached than a Presbyterian one where it wasn't.

*Quote from Bill*


> Bruce, I appreciate your participation in this thread. By no means are you compromising your beliefs. However, you defer to the Spirit's role in bringing sinners to new life in Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel. When it comes down to the lowest common denominator it has to be the Gospel. If not the Gospel, what else?



The sacraments can be used with the Word in preaching and teaching unbelievers and those unbelievers brought up in Christian homes. Baptists can make use of water baptism for this purpose, but obviously there will be differences in how this is used.

It is a mystery how the Spirit moves in the heart blessing the Word and the sacraments to the unbeliever. So how much this difference between the Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians is in the hands of the Holy Spirit is also a deep mystery.

Even if you could get accurate head counts, both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians agree that it was correct for Old Testament Jewish boys to be circumcised. But many of them didn't believe. 

So what would it prove if it could be shown that a higher percentage of Baptist children believed compared with a lower percentage of Paedobaptist children?

The placing by God of someone in a Christian family or their reception of infant baptism doesn't eliminate their responsibility before God to believe. God hasn't made a promise that everyone who is brought up in a Christian home and/or is baptised will believe.


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> Quote from Bill
> Bruce, I appreciate your participation in this thread. By no means are you compromising your beliefs. However, you defer to the Spirit's role in bringing sinners to new life in Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel. When it comes down to the lowest common denominator it has to be the Gospel. If not the Gospel, what else?
> The sacraments can be used with the Word in preaching and teaching unbelievers and those unbelievers brought up in Christian homes. Baptists can make use of water baptism for this purpose, but obviously there will be differences in how this is used.
> 
> It is a mystery how the Spirit moves in the heart blessing the Word and the sacraments to the unbeliever.



Richard, but it still comes down to the Gospel. Maybe you're having a discussion with your child about baptism or the Lord's Supper. That discussion gives occasion to present a Gospel witness. And because you are not ashamed to proclaim the Gospel (Romans 1:16), you are presenting to your child the words that lead to life. The point I'm making (and I believe Bruce advanced it) is that it is the Gospel that saves. The sacraments/ordinances may be tools, but they are superseded by the efficacy of the Gospel.


----------



## Peairtach

Fair enough.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad said:


> We don't baptize infants to improve the odds of their election, Pergs. We baptize them in obedience to God. Christians don't choose what to obey and what not based on perceived individual benefit when we're thinking right. You disagree that it is a thing commanded, fine, but I hope you don't think your paedobaptist brethren are such so as to 'stack the deck' in our kids' favor.


 

RB Kuiper says that salvation runs along physical family lines here:



> But this we know: in the imparting of saving grace to sinners GOd, although not bound by family relationships, yet takes them into account.



_The Glorious Body of Christ_, 211-212.



If we connect this family principle with baptism and not mainly the Christian nurture that a Christian family provides then, again, we should see higher rates of baptized covenant children growing up to be faithful adults versus children who were nurtured in a Christian home but yet remained unbaptized for most of their childhood. 

If baptism does, indeed, add something significant (i.e., if there is REALLY a promise to the physical seed of believers who are baptized) then we should see a difference that us disobedient baptists cannot give our children if we deny them this means of grace, even though we raise our children in the Gospel.

If faith is needed to appropriate these promise, then you are agreed with the baptists in principle. The only difference is that we prefer to wait for a profession of this faith before we administer this ordinance.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Herald said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you're tempted to say, "The Gospel message is contained in baptism", then you're really answering with "the Gospel."
> 
> 
> 
> I concur totally with the *equation* presented in this statement.
> 
> Pitting baptism against proclamation is ineffective. Baptism doesn't effect conversion. For that matter, preaching doesn't effect conversion either--by which I mean, it is Holy Spirit who effects conversion, and he uses the gospel to do that in the use of ordinary means. But the principal means is preaching, and sacramental means are incomplete means unaccompanied by the Word.
> 
> You know, we _keep on preaching and administering sacraments_ to people, because they are for the ongoing work of conversion, when we think of conversion as more than the moment of initial faith-and-repentance that marks the beginning of new life in Christ. Sanctification isn't really a different concept from conversion; conversion actually expresses the transformative nature of what's going on (evil-to-good), whereas sanctification emphasizes the increase of purity, both in quality and quantity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bruce, I appreciate your participation in this thread. By no means are you compromising your beliefs. However, you defer to the Spirit's role in bringing sinners to new life in Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel. When it comes down to the lowest common denominator it has to be the Gospel. If not the Gospel, what else?
Click to expand...

 
True, and what we say (and where you and I must differ as a matter of course) is that we start administering the appropriate gospel-means approximately the first Sunday the child shows up in church. Why the difference on what the appropriate means are? Well, that's where our different hermeneutics get us...


----------



## Pergamum

If covenant children are completely in the covenant and heirs to all the promises of the covenant, including eternal life, how are any lost? 

Will God be a God to believers and their children? Obviously not very well, if physical seed is in mind.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> If covenant children are completely in the covenant and heirs to all the promises of the covenant, including eternal life, how are any lost?
> 
> Will God be a God to believers and their children? Obviously not very well, if physical seed is in mind.



Okay, this thread is turning into a credo-paedo debate. Lets halt it now and go back to the OP or else open a new thread.


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> Why the difference on what the appropriate means are? Well, that's where our different hermeneutics get us...



Naturally. But I praise God that you and I share unity in the most essential aspect, which is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Pergamum said:


> If the key ingredient is that the baptized infant later improves upon his baptism by faith and shows his places in the covenant by his faith, why not wait until there is at least a profession of that faith?



For the same reason that Abraham did not wait until Isaac believed before he initiated him into the covenant of grace! God commanded the initiation of covenant children into the visible covenant community and he has nowhere rescinded the command to initiate them and he continues the promise to bless believers and their children, including gentiles who are included in the new covenant.

The great difference here, is the Baptist conception of the new covenant which conception rests partly on a poor hermeneutic (a wrong way of reading) which, when applied to key passages such as Jer 31, produces a wrong conception f the new covenant. It also rests partly on a different, more realized (or over realized) eschatology of the new covenant. The Baptist conception of the new covenant makes it more eschatological than it is. The new covenant is semi-eschatological, not wholly eschatological. The eschatological principle has been introduced. The kingdom has been inaugurated but the principle (the kingdom) has not been consummated. 

In biblical-theological terms we're still in the same covenant that God initiated with Abraham. That's why Paul calls Abraham the father of all believers (Rom 4). That's why Paul says that the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of of grace, is permanent and the Mosaic covenant (the old covenant) is temporary (See Gal 3-4; and all of Hebrews). 

We're in the new administration of the Abrahamic covenant. The promise has been fulfilled but all is not consummated and thus the administration of the covenant of grace continues and covenant children are initiated and as we do so we trust God's covenant promise, "I will be a God to you and to your children." 

Infant initiation is no more foolish now than it was for Abraham. Any system that makes the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace foolish, as I think yours does, is highly problematic.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Dr. Clark. Your assertion sounds like Richard Pratt's argument that baptists have an "over-realized eschatology." Would you agree?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> If we connect this family principle with baptism and not mainly the Christian nurture that a Christian family provides then, again, we should see higher rates of baptized covenant children growing up to be faithful adults versus children who were nurtured in a Christian home but yet remained unbaptized for most of their childhood.
> 
> If baptism does, indeed, add something significant (i.e., if there is REALLY a promise to the physical seed of believers who are baptized) then we should see a difference that us disobedient baptists cannot give our children if we deny them this means of grace, even though we raise our children in the Gospel.
> 
> If faith is needed to appropriate these promise, then you are agreed with the baptists in principle. The only difference is that we prefer to wait for a profession of this faith before we administer this ordinance.


There are so many question-begging fallacies here!

1) How quickly *must* this disparity manifest itself, assuming that it *ought* to?

2) What other factors, including the inculcation of the true and proper method of reading Scripture (whichever side is correct), are part of this equation?

3) If this actuarial method of accounting for faith is *impossible* to achieve (kind of reminds me of socialistic economic engineering and the information problem), then shouldn't we just do what we believe the Bible says, and trust that the results will be what God says they should be, no matter what answer (right or wrong) we came up with?

4) "Seeing" the difference is precisely a demand that goes contrary to the requirement to obey, even when we can't tangibly encounter the results.

5) Last, I think your final point is 180deg. on its head.

YOU agree with US in principle, except that you've *added* to the need for faith, a universal, rationalist requirement of mature (or cognizant) profession-of-faith to the necessary conditions for efficacy or appropriateness in the sacrament. There should be no seriously handicapped, baptized members of your church. No double standards, if you please.

And from baptism being fundamentally a statement by God (through his church) of his *monergistic* work, in which objective fact men place their trust and are saved--you've *subtracted* by making baptism fundamentally a _fallible_ statement about what a man claims has "surely" been done to him, past tense, he's perfectly fit for heaven, OSAS.


I love you, Pergy, but I'm trying to figure out why you started this thread in the first place... (and see my #26, same ????? but unstated)


----------



## Phil D.

Pergamum said:


> If covenant children are completely in the covenant and heirs to all the promises of the covenant, including eternal life, how are any lost?


 
In Presbyterian covenant theology people are said to be in covenant in two respects, correspondent with the visible/invisible church distinction. Samuel Rutherford put it this way.

Persons are two ways in Covenant with God, [1] externally by visible profession, and conditionally, not in reference to the Covenant, but to the things promised in Covenant, which none obtains, but such as fulfill the condition of the Covenant…And, [2.] Infants born of Covenanted parents are in Covenant with God, because they are born of such parents, as are in Covenant with God…The Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these who are only externally in Covenant. And yet he promiseth both to the elect…Hence the Covenant must be considered two ways, [1] in _abstracto_ and formally…so [i.e., ‘and in this way’] all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace…[2.] In the concrete…as the Lord not only promises, but acts and engraves the Law in the heart, commensurably with the decree of Election, so the elect only are under the Covenant of Grace. (_The Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace_, 72ff)​
The WLC, the creation of which Rutherford played a leading role in, specifically incorporates this principle in the context of baptism.

Q. 166. _Unto whom is baptism to be administered?_ A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.​
I think it is also helpful to recognize that the infants of believers aren’t said to be baptized in order to bring them into the covenant. Rather, they are to be baptized because by virtue of their parent’s covenantal standing, they are, in that particular respect, already within the covenant. The _Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_ explicitly stated that the infants of believing parents are “federally holy [1 Cor. 7:14] before baptism, and therefore are they baptized” (_On Baptism_). In other words, it is because of their inherent position within the outward aspect of the covenant that the infant children of believers are entitled to receive the visible sign of the covenant.


----------



## Pergamum

Contra_Mundum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we connect this family principle with baptism and not mainly the Christian nurture that a Christian family provides then, again, we should see higher rates of baptized covenant children growing up to be faithful adults versus children who were nurtured in a Christian home but yet remained unbaptized for most of their childhood.
> 
> If baptism does, indeed, add something significant (i.e., if there is REALLY a promise to the physical seed of believers who are baptized) then we should see a difference that us disobedient baptists cannot give our children if we deny them this means of grace, even though we raise our children in the Gospel.
> 
> If faith is needed to appropriate these promise, then you are agreed with the baptists in principle. The only difference is that we prefer to wait for a profession of this faith before we administer this ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many question-begging fallacies here!
> 
> 1) How quickly *must* this disparity manifest itself, assuming that it *ought* to?
> 
> 2) What other factors, including the inculcation of the true and proper method of reading Scripture (whichever side is correct), are part of this equation?
> 
> 3) If this actuarial method of accounting for faith is *impossible* to achieve (kind of reminds me of socialistic economic engineering and the information problem), then shouldn't we just do what we believe the Bible says, and trust that the results will be what God says they should be, no matter what answer (right or wrong) we came up with?
> 
> 4) "Seeing" the difference is precisely a demand that goes contrary to the requirement to obey, even when we can't tangibly encounter the results.
> 
> 5) Last, I think your final point is 180deg. on its head.
> 
> YOU agree with US in principle, except that you've *added* to the need for faith, a universal, rationalist requirement of mature (or cognizant) profession-of-faith to the necessary conditions for efficacy or appropriateness in the sacrament. There should be no seriously handicapped, baptized members of your church. No double standards, if you please.
> 
> And from baptism being fundamentally a statement by God (through his church) of his *monergistic* work, in which objective fact men place their trust and are saved--you've *subtracted* by making baptism fundamentally a _fallible_ statement about what a man claims has "surely" been done to him, past tense, he's perfectly fit for heaven, OSAS.
> 
> 
> I love you, Pergy, but I'm trying to figure out why you started this thread in the first place... (and see my #26, same ????? but unstated)
Click to expand...

 
My main point in starting this thread was that I simply don't see what baptism adds to an infant and I only see promises attached to faith, not baptism. 

If baptists are being disobedient for not baptizing their infants, and the baptism of infants contains a promise, then the impact of this promise ought to be more clearly seen. 

Plus, I see no requirement to obey. Sure, baptism and circumcision are somewhat analogous but are not identical.

Concerning faulty hermenutics: If infant baptist is legitimate and commanded of the church, why is it that every other ordinance of the church is spelled out in the NT, such as doctrine and discipline and even polity are touched on in the NT, but not infant baptism? 

A quote by Walt Chantry:




> How can a distinctly New Testament ordinance have its fullest-nay, it's only foundation- in the Old Testament Scripture? This is contrary to any just sense of Biblical Theology and against all sound rules of interpretation.




_Baptism and Covenant Theology_, 4.


My main point in this thread is that a Presbyterian brother once told me of the severe disadavantage I was placing my children under by not baptizing them as infants. 

This leads me to believe that there is some sort of power in baptism; though many Presbyterians come back and say that faith must be present....and so I am back at square one... why bother to baptize an infant until said faith is at least professed. 

The parables of the NT contain many images of wheat and tares both in the church, but it is one thing not to be able to separate the two until the judgment and quite another to open the door wide to non-professors.


Again, you might say I am asking the wrong question, but "What does baptism do?" And "What are the advantages of baptism to the one who is not even cognizant that they are being baptized?" And, "What advantage does the baptized infant have over the non-baptized infant if both are raised in Christian nurture?" 

I am not merely being pugnacious, but enquiring minds want to know. To what degree does baptism give grace to an unknowing child?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> If baptists are being disobedient for not baptizing their infants, and the baptism of infants contains a promise, then the impact of this promise ought to be more clearly seen.


Let me repeat myself, *How soon?* What's the appropriate time-scale? How long did it take until the subversion of biblical church-government resulted in the papacy, and the litany of associated ills which necessitated a massive Reformation?

Should I ponder for a while, and come up with a bunch of characteristics of "the western evangelical church," which looks to me to be broadly _baptistic_ by this early 21st century mark--characteristics that I think might be related to its general decline, and due to a complex of radical individualism, faulty hermeneutics, and ignorance of church history, and exhibited by the mark of hypercredoism?!? Frankly, I'd just rather stick with promoting what I'm confident are the right principles, and keep my apocalyptic anxieties to myself. Because I doubt my ability or my place in history to pen the new "95 Theses" or "Babylonian Captivity of the Church."



Pergamum said:


> Plus, I see no requirement to obey. Sure, baptism and circumcision are somewhat analogous but are not identical.


  This biographical statement plus a tautology doesn't add to your stated point for the thread. Moving on. 



Pergamum said:


> Concerning faulty hermenutics: If infant baptist is legitimate and commanded of the church, why is it that every other ordinance of the church is spelled out in the NT, such as doctrine and discipline and even polity are touched on in the NT, but not infant baptism?
> 
> A quote by Walt Chantry:


Your "every other ordinance" is a hasty generalization. You retract that sweeping statement with the following modifier "touched on." Because of your pre-commitments, you distinguish between baptism for professors (on which there is little difference between us) and baptism for infants of those believers--as if we who practiced baptism that includes both also distinguished them! For us, the doctrine of baptism is one whole cloth; the ONE doctrine of baptism is all over the New Testament, and has antecedents in the Old Testament, and not just in circumcision. You're position attempts to drive a wedge between different aspects of the position we take; but to us it looks like a paper wedge.

As for Chantry's quote, with all due respect, I would say that his treatment (and dismissal) of our position does it little justice. There are a number of postulates and pre-commitments he has even before getting to the starting gate that I would demand justification for. His baptism as a "distinctly NT ordinance" would be the first. The NT uses "baptism" to describe OT purification; to describe the flood; and to describe the Red Sea crossing. So, automatically, he's going to have to start qualifying his blanket assertion. Then we can go on to the assumptions that the NT is where we inevitably begin theology; the redefinition of Covenant Theology, etc.



Pergamum said:


> My main point in this thread is that a Presbyterian brother once told me of the severe disadavantage I was placing my children under by not baptizing them as infants.


Wasn't this ages and ages ago? Why should it be bothering you, if you are sure that he was full of hot air? Was he able to spell out the "severe disadvantages" or even partially, so that you could understand what he meant? How much of a theologian was this fellow? Was he just a budding-seminarian?

Personally, I would just tell you that I *think* you are putting your children at a disadvantage, because I think the Bible tells us to act the other way. And my inability to spell out what that disadvantage entails is not as important as understanding there IS a disadvantage. There must have been THOUSANDS of Israelite babies and adults in Egypt who were not circumcised when Moses was sent back there to deliver them. But it was MOSES and his child who faced the Death-Angel on the way, Ex.4:24. The point is, not everyone's disadvantage is going to be so clearly spelled out as it was that day. But that doesn't detract from the fact that ALL those who were not circumcised had "broken my covenant," Gen.17:14.



Pergamum said:


> This leads me to believe that there is some sort of power in baptism; though many Presbyterians come back and say that faith must be present....and so I am back at square one... why bother to baptize an infant until said faith is at least professed.


And this pretty much frustrates me, saying that "baptism has some *power*." Was circumcision some sort of "talisman," that would keep that Angel away?!? Nonsense. I said in a different thread: baptism is like citizenship papers, or a birth certificate. Baptism means you "belong" to the people of God _in an outward reckoning._ You agree with that reading so far as mature-professors go. And maybe you think that your children really shouldn't be Americans, or citizens of "wherever you are right now," they should be non-citizens of anything, until they can "choose for themselves" what to call themselves, intelligently, deliberately?

I really can't believe you'd think that. No more than I think you believe they are the devil's property, until they prove otherwise. And besides, I'm also sure that you don't believe there is "power" in an adult's baptism either, right? Please tell me you do not think that "power" in a baptism accomplishes a certain "holding" of that (adult) person in the faith.



Pergamum said:


> The parables of the NT contain many images of wheat and tares both in the church, but it is one thing not to be able to separate the two until the judgment and quite another to open the door wide to non-professors.


And this is simply pejorative, that we are "opening the door wide" to non-professors, as if this were something wily-nilly, and not subject to ordinary church-discipline. As if the same criticism didn't apply against Abraham, and later Moses. This is the point made earlier, that the issue is gospel-churches. I'd go so far as to say, Calvinistic, disciplining, gospel-churches, because I think those are the purest churches. It's why we make such a big deal out of the marks of the church. We argue that in the case of these little ones, God chose to give his sign to all of them born to those already inside the covenant (and not cast out of it)--even the non-elect--for the sake of the the elect among them. Argue or dismiss it, but that is a biblical case.



Pergamum said:


> Again, you might say I am asking the wrong question, but "What does baptism do?" And "What are the advantages of baptism to the one who is not even cognizant that they are being baptized?" And, "What advantage does the baptized infant have over the non-baptized infant if both are raised in Christian nurture?"


It puts a person *inside* of the "arena" of spiritual blessings, instead of leaving them *outside* (or, in the case of first century Jewish believers, their children would have been CAST outside--the idea that the day 3000 were added to the church, 10,000 were subtracted from the church).

Perg, I honestly believe that you probably do as much or more than I do with my own kids, spiritually. Although, I know some folks will not have their child pray unless its first "the sinner's prayer," I doubt that's your practice. You probably teach them to memorize Bible stories, verses, and catechism answers for doctrinal foundation. Brother, you are treating them like they ARE what you'd really like them to BE and REMAIN. You are treating them like little Christians, not like little heathens who can't make any use of "religion" until they are obviously converted.

You are treating them like Christians, like disciples, but you won't tell them that they have any RIGHT to these things. No, not until they stand up and ask if they have any right to the holy things they've been handling. And then what do you say? "You aren't really a citizen, and you don't have the right, but swear allegiance to King Jesus, take his mark, and then you'll have a right to these things you've been playing with." These things aren't really theirs until they start asserting themselves.

Contrast that, with the view that answer the question, "What right do I have to these holy things I'm handling?" in this way: "God providentially put you in this family, so he could privilege you with the RIGHT to these things you've been playing with, learning to love them. They have had your name on them since you were born, because you've had God's name on you since you were born." Those things "belong" the children in a sense, because those children have been marked as "belonging" to those things. God's electing love is prefigured upon them, long before they were capable of recognizing his blessings.

If the latter expression can easily lead to arrogant presumption that comes from forgetting that one is powerless in his own birth, and unworthy of any privilege; the former expression can just as easily lead to overestimating worthiness that comes from the wisdom one had to claim something, to make it his--things he had no recognizable right to handle in the first place. His choice validates his right to play with them ex post facto.

In my view, the latter expression is more theologically justified than the former, and I think that the parent who is "waiting for faith" to lead the child into deeper religious expressions is being more consistent with the former view of things. And I think that's one rational reason why American evangelicalism is getting shallower and shallower.



Pergamum said:


> am not merely being pugnacious, but enquiring minds want to know. To what degree does baptism give grace to an unknowing child?


You are asking me to provide one of the "secret things," that belong to God, instead of things revealed. My children need to believe what their baptism *means*, which is the way for them to grow into a lifetime of deepening appreciation of it. I don't even know what baptism did for me the day I was baptized. But I know that it was part of the total process God has used in my life to apply his grace to me.

Today, I know that it translated into a personal statement that he loved me, and marked me out as his before I could respond. He preached Christ to me in a way that I can't put into language--even adults can barely understand it. Today, I know that water told me better than my brain could process the words of the minister, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." And that moment was someplace in the beginning of my life of faith, wrapped up in a lifetime of attendance on the means of grace. This is what I believe Scripture teaches, and the degrees of the thing don't matter to my mind.


Sorry for the length of this reply.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Pastor Bruce. And thanks for the length of your long reply. I'll chew on this for a day.


----------



## Peairtach

I think although Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic Presbyterians aren't giving a different Gospel to their children, they are giving a slightly different story of who they are in relation to God. 

We'd rather children be brought up by Reformed Baptists than Arminian or Liberal Presbyterians. 

It's probably completely impossible for us to measure the effects of the difference between the Reformed Baptist message and practice and the Calvinistic Presbyterian message and practice on the overall success or otherwise of the Gospel.

There are so many variables apart from water baptism.

The Reformed Baptist message and practice is slightly less "full-orbed" but no doubt many Reformed Baptists put their Calvinistic Presbyterian brothers to shame and _vice versa_ in the tough and important task of Christian child-rearing.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I think baptism by sprinkling/pouring (as I see it evidenced in Scripture) can be a very good means of delivering the true Gospel (especially God's sovereignty in man's salvation), but on the flipside, if we make man the center of baptism (the sinner being active, while the water/the Spirit being passive) we will have created a lot of confusion in the minds of unbelievers and members of the church alike. No, worse than that; we will have given them a FALSE gospel! In infant-baptism we see the Gospel most brightly, because the infant's helplessness demonstrates to us the helplessness of any sinner in coming to Christ for salvation. So helpless are we, like dead corpses, that we must be brought to Christ by grace!

The above is just as true, when it comes to the Lord's Supper. If we partake of it "unworthily", that is, not seeing Christ as the center of our daily sanctification, we will end up thinking about our own performance in the sight of God. We will have totally missed the Gospel, and sadly, only hardened ourselves against the truth of the sufficiency of Christ's work in our salvation.


----------



## Phil D.

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I think baptism by sprinkling/pouring (as I see it evidenced in Scripture) can be a very good means of delivering the true Gospel (especially God's sovereignty in man's salvation), but on the flipside, if we make man the center of baptism (the sinner being active, while the water/the Spirit being passive) we will have created a lot of confusion in the minds of unbelievers and members of the church alike. No, worse than that; we will have given them a FALSE gospel!



I really didn't get up today wanting to engage in another discussion on baptism, but I find your wording (as perhaps distinct from your intent?) to be rather provocative. Are you really saying that baptism by immersion is presenting a false gospel?


----------



## Peairtach

> So helpless are we, like dead corpses, that we must be brought to Christ by grace!



Whether infants or adults are baptised in Presbyterian churches, or adults are baptised in Reformed Baptist churches, the message is - or should be - that regeneration is done by Christ alone by the irresistible work of the Holy Spirit, monergistically and the recipient is passive whether infant or adult.

If the adult in a Presbyterian or Baptist church thinks he's _doing_ something wonderful in_ being baptised_ his baptism should be held off for re-education. 

In the Lord's Supper we are active, because the Lord's Supper is not the sacrament that shows forth regeneration but the exercise of faith by us by God's grace, which comes after regeneration.


----------



## Romans922

This might be unclear, but God's people (paedos?) don't make their children part of the covenant. God enters each child of the believer into the covenant not by a SIGN/SEAL, but by virtue of their being a child of a covenant member and therefore at conception they are part of the covenant community. The sign/seal recognize that and show it forth in a public manner, as commanded by God.

At conception, David being the son of Jesse was part of the covenant community, because he was circumcised? No. Because he exercised faith? No. Because he was a child of Jesse who was part of the covenant community.


----------



## Peairtach

> This might be unclear



It shouldn't be unclear because it's been repeated numerous times on this board. Reformed Baptists' children are also in the covenant but they deny this and hence don't get them baptised.

Of course there is also a real sense in which all those born unregenerate are in their hearts and minds breakers of the Covenant of Works and locked-in to that broken CoW until they are regenerated. But the children of those who have a credible profession of the Christian faith should be recognised as being under the administration of the CoG with all its promises, privileges, responsibilities, and the peculiar covenantal gracious influences of the Holy Spirit by being baptised.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Richard Tallach said:


> In the Lord's Supper we are active, because the Lord's Supper is not the sacrament that shows forth regeneration but the exercise of faith by us by God's grace, which comes after regeneration.


 
I do recognize that sanctification is applied to us through our own participation in God's appointed means of grace. My intention was not to nullify that truth, but rather to draw our eyes from our own works to the one, sufficient and perfect work of Christ, by which we have our right standing before God. Our eyes get easily mesmerized by our own performances, and that's why I think it's important we constantly keep our eyes fixed in Christ's obedience in all our activities.


----------



## Iconoclast

Joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and so I am back at square one... why bother to baptize an infant until said faith is at least professed.
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ reason you need, rather than putting God in the dock thinking that "the impact of this promise ought to be more clearly seen," is that God has commanded it. That's why you should "bother" to do it. As always, the problem between the covenant baptism and credo-only baptism mindsets will always be one of continuity. Until baptists can see that the church in the O.T. is "of the same stuff" they will never understand the continuity of applying the sign of covenant entry to their children. Thankfully, the godly baptist is inconsistent and raises up his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and, although he has failed to apply the sign, their children are still part of the covenant by virtue of their believing parent.
Click to expand...




> is that God has commanded it. That's why you should "bother" to do it.


Joshua......the problem is you cannot produce a text to show this "command". We can produce several texts that command persons to believe,or repent and be baptized. 
Your system seeks to rely upon on this idea;


> Until baptists can see that the church in the O.T. is "of the same stuff" they will never understand the continuity of applying the sign of covenant entry to their children.


 Again...your position on covenant continuity says the new is just like[same old stuff] as the old. The scripture in Hebrews 8:9 says "not like"


> 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers



There was a physical sign given to physical offspring. All that was required was physical birth. Spiritual birth is required now.The anti type to circumsision was regeneration.....not water baptism col2:11-12. So this "same old stuff" has been changed by God. This is how we see it differently.
Therefore it is not a blessed inconsistency that RB's see. We can learn from the Ot example of those who were covenant keepers and covenant breakers,and urge our children to find rest In Christ alone. We are not sure as to our childrens condition,so we press home the claims of the gospel upon them. We can show how many who had great advantage Rom3;1-2 still fell in unbelief hebrews 3-4, 1 cor 10.
We do not tell our children they can live a holy life in the strength of the flesh,rom8:9 1cor 2:14.....but we explain the new birth.
We do not say...you are in, until you show that you are out of any covenant. We teach that now to be in ... a person Must be born from above,and they being born to believing parents have a great blessing and advantage 1cor7:14. As always the results belong to God.We can take the promises made available to believing parents and pray that God will work through us and all other gospel means to accomplish this.
Of course you seek this for your offspring as well. It is just that you see the Ot type in this case as the paradigm for all time.We see a newness in the NT. in this very way.


----------



## Pergamum

I have mulled this over for a day...

... and I still cannot see that baptism is a "promise." 

It seems rather a sign of an inward reality of regeneration and therefore one should at least be a professor before one receives this sign. 

I am glad that Presbyterians want to baptize their infants due to obedience to what they believe to be a command (though I see no such command), but I still cannot see how a thing can be a promise if the delivery of such a promise is so uneven (i.e. many children of believers, though baptized, remain unsaved). Therefore, I say again that this promise actually accomplishes little, or else the promise must be only applied to those that the Lord calls. 

It seems that all know the Lord in the covenant of grace and that all in the covenant will persevere. it seems that whoever sits in church (whether they be children of believers or just visitors) can be said to be under the covenant administration by virtue of being witnesses to the preaching and the ordinances, but only the Elect are "in" the covenant.

It seems that infant baptism adds nothing and is not a talisman and that any favor that God shows to the children of believers is due to the Christian nurture which Christian parents bring and not due to this 'promise" being applied to them.

It seems that paedos MUST charge us baptists with grievous sin and it might be logical to conclude that we baptists ought not to expect that same measure of blessings on our children as those who baptize their children since we are intentionally witholding baptism from these little ones. But, again, I don't see any difference in future faith between those raised in Christian homes and denied baptism or those baptized as infants and raised in Chrsitian homes. I.e. baptism "does" nothing it seems without faith. And if it does nothing without faith, why not wait until faith is at least professed.

If I am putting my children at a disadvantage by refusing to baptize them until they give a profession of faith, then someone ought to be able to articulate what this disadvantage is. And given the disadvantage, we should expect God to bless the children of paedobaptists much more than the children of credo-baptists and make good doctrine visible by results.


----------



## seajayrice

Hey Brother,

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
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. 

Jewish customs.


----------



## Peairtach

*Anthony*


> All that was required was physical birth. Spiritual birth is required now.



Spiritual birth was also required, as you know, under the Abrahamic Covenant during the period from Abraham to Moses, during the period from Moses to Christ, and is required during the period of the Abrahamic Covenant from Christ's First Advent to His Second Advent.



> Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn (Deut 10:16, ESV)





> And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.(Deut 30:6)





> Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."(Jer 4:4)





> In admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations.(Ezek 44:7)





> "Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.(Ezek 44:9)





> "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.(Acts 7:51)



*Quote from Pergy*


> but I still cannot see how a thing can be a promise if the delivery of such a promise is so uneven (i.e. many children of believers, though baptized, remain unsaved).



This would make the promise from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ to be not a promise too then, because it was so uneven in being fulfilled in the salvation of individuals under the Covenant administration.

You have to ask _what the nature of the promise_ is regarding the children of believers. If God has promised to irresistibly and invincibly save every child that is born to a believer (and is baptised) then that has not happened, and if you read the promise(s) regarding the offspring of believers this way then you are making God a liar.

The promise regarding the offspring of believers can't mean that every covenant child will believe, because it didn't happen in the Bible and it doesn't happen today.



> only the Elect are "in" the covenant.



Only the elect are in the Covenant of Redemption (Pactum Salutis). Of these many aren't in the CoG, having not believed yet, or having not even been born yet.

In the CoG on Earth are the elect and the non-elect. In the CoG in Heaven are only the elect.


----------



## TimV

Herald said:


> It is a sign only.


A sign only or a means of grace?


----------



## Iconoclast

Joshua, thanks for your response. you asked where was a change made..in reference to children.
After the meeting in Acts 15....concerning Nt believers it is evident a change had indeed taken place. Here in Acts 21 we see what the Jews understood of the apostles teaching.


18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 

19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 

20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 

*21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,* neither to walk after the customs. 

He does not say that there is a change of sign,indicating covenant inclusion of infants,The Nt indicates believers by virtue of union with Christ are now the circumcision.
3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 

Christ as the seed of Abraham.....and only believers in saving union with Him;


> 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


[QUOTE16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 

][/QUOTE]


> 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given *to them that believe*.





> 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 
> 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise


This speaking of Spirit baptism,only to those who believe...vs22 all one *In Christ*vs.28 if ye be Christs...vs 29 then are ye Abrahams seed.
Joshua I see this passage defining who is included according to the promise of Gen17....no mixed multitude here.

I think this along with Romans 6 col 2 and phil 3 are the apostolic explanation of how the fulfillment takes place.
In regards to col2.......from the baptist confession with commentary,by WR.Downing


> Finally, regeneration is described as a spiritual “circumcision.” Cf. Deut.
> 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:26; Acts 7:51–53 with Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:1–3; Col.
> 2:10–13. The antitype of circumcision is regeneration. Those in the Old
> Covenant were circumcised; those in the New Covenant are regenerated.
> Regeneration is thus the covenant–sign or seal of the New or Gospel
> covenant. Regeneration, as the antitype of circumcision, is a heart–operation
> performed by God alone [“a circumcision made without hands”] in taking
> away the preeminence of the flesh, i.e., breaking the reigning power of sin.
> Cf. Rom. 6:1–14.




Richard you offered in your list of verses Ezk 44:7, 9
9Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger,* uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary*, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel

As Ezk looked forward to the NT....he says NO uncircumcised shall enter into the sanctuary.Richard this sounds like the RB position where only the regenerate are said to be in? what do you think?


----------



## Peairtach

*Anthony*


> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.



This would have been more persuasive to Presbyterians if it had said "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the gentiles to forsake *Abraham*, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, etc.

But Romans 11 teaches that we Gentiles are engrafted as individuals and families into the Abrahamic Olive Tree. There is no indication that the engrafting of families into the Israel of God has ceased, nor that Israel or the Abrahamic Covenant has ceased with the coming of Christ.

I'll get back on your other point later.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a sign only.
> 
> 
> 
> A sign only or a means of grace?
Click to expand...


A means of grace certainly, to the extent that it confirms the thing signified. As such baptism should encourage our faith as we reflect upon sharing in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But baptism achieves being a means of grace by being a sign of the thing signified. So, baptism is chiefly a sign. It has no salvific capabilities, although it points to that which does.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> It seems that paedos MUST charge us baptists with grievous sin and it might be logical to conclude that we baptists ought not to expect that same measure of blessings on our children as those who baptize their children since we are intentionally witholding baptism from these little ones. But, again, I don't see any difference in future faith between those raised in Christian homes and denied baptism or those baptized as infants and raised in Chrsitian homes. I.e. baptism "does" nothing it seems without faith. And if it does nothing without faith, why not wait until faith is at least professed.
> 
> If I am putting my children at a disadvantage by refusing to baptize them until they give a profession of faith, then someone ought to be able to articulate what this disadvantage is. And given the disadvantage, we should expect God to bless the children of paedobaptists much more than the children of credo-baptists and make good doctrine visible by results.



Pergy, you're conflating two separate things. On the one hand you're reacting against the charge made by paedobaptists that credobaptist parents are guilty of grievous sin because they do not baptize their children. Since both you and I have been on the board for a few years we should accept that charge as the default paedobaptist position. In other words we should not be taken by surprise. We believe paedobaptists sin by applying the sign to unworthy recipients. There is no secret here between both camps. It's a disagreement that we've learning to tolerate on the Puritan Board. So, on this part of the discussion you are stating the obvious.

You then make this statement, "I don't see any difference in future faith between those raised in Christian homes and denied baptism or those baptized as infants and raised in Chrsitian homes. I.e. baptism "does" nothing it seems without faith. And if it does nothing without faith, why not wait until faith is at least professed. If I am putting my children at a disadvantage by refusing to baptize them until they give a profession of faith, then someone ought to be able to articulate what this disadvantage is. And given the disadvantage, we should expect God to bless the children of paedobaptists much more than the children of credo-baptists and make good doctrine visible by results." This is where you stray off base. You're unwittingly transposing a limiting view of God's grace upon anyone who is in error. God blesses us in spite of our sin. I can easily say that paedobaptists place their children under a false hope by illegitimately baptizing them. And, while that is possible (that children may grow up trusting in their baptism and not Christ), we must not assume that we can determine to whom God dispenses his saving grace. The fact is that Baptist and Presbyterian parents are just as likely to raise their children with a knowledge of the Gospel. The same is true for the converse; that negligent parents, Baptist and Presbyterian, will withhold presenting a solid Gospel witness to their children. Along the way faithful parents will be imperfect in their parenting. They will display inconsistencies in word and deed. Yet, God's grace and mercy is greater than the shortcomings, sin, and the inconsistency of men. God will bless even when we don't deserve it.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Herald said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a sign only.
> 
> 
> 
> A sign only or a means of grace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A means of grace certainly, to the extent that it confirms the thing signified. As such baptism should encourage our faith as we reflect upon sharing in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But baptism achieves being a means of grace by being a sign of the thing signified. So, baptism is chiefly a sign. It has no salvific capabilities, although it points to that which does.
Click to expand...


This is what exactly distinguishes us (paedo's) from baptist's. We don't see baptism (or the sacraments in general) as "chiefly a sign". We see them as a means of grace that God bestows on us when we partake of the ceremony. With that, we see baptism as a sign AND seal. The Belgic confession puts it this way: "We believe that our gracious God, taking account of our weakness and infirmities, has ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to SEAL unto us His promises". Also, Ursinus, commenting on the Heidelberg Catechism says: "Baptism... is a sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, which seals unto the faithful, who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the remission of all their sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the ingrafting of them into the body and church of Christ".

Baptism is more then just some "public declaration", as baptists like to say. This is why we baptize our children. We are giving them the "mark of the covenant". I believe, however, that this is kind of off topic from the OP but i had to respond.

So, for the OP, do i believe that baptized covenant children are more likely to believe in Christ then non-baptized children? I believe that, regardless if they have been given the "mark of the covenant" they are still in the covenant community if they have been born of believing parents. I believe that, if the parents do not baptize their child, they are sinning against God. That's how serious the sacraments should be taken.


----------



## Herald

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, for the OP, do i believe that baptized covenant children are more likely to believe in Christ then non-baptized children? I believe that, regardless if they have been given the "mark of the covenant" they are still in the covenant community if they have been born of believing parents. I believe that, if the parents do not baptize their child, they are sinning against God. That's how serious the sacraments should be taken.



You really didn't answer the question.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I figured because of my response the obvious answer would be no. No, since they are both covenant children. The promise is "to you and to your children". Baptism doesn't somehow give you more "holy points". It doesn't make you more acceptable to God. Salvation is based upon what God does for you, not what you do for God. The question presumes that there is something you can do to make yourself more acceptable to God.


----------



## Iconoclast

Joshua,
The believers in apostolic times did not need any special "regeneration goggles" to baptize believers. Profession is what they baptized on. You should know that being the staunch credobaptist that you are[as per post 66].
Joshua.....in post 73 when I commentated on Gal 3 it was not in reference to the perseverance of the saints.It clearly is a reference to believers alone which I think you might have attempted to sidestep. The language is for believers alone, not believers and their children unless and until those children are savingly converted by the work of the Spirit.
What you believe points to it-water baptism- we believe points back to it-Spirit baptism. The new testament points to being sealed with the Spirit,not an external sign.


> 12for our being to the praise of His glory, [even] those who did first hope in the Christ,
> 
> 13in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth -- the good news of your salvation -- in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
> 
> 14which is an earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the acquired possession, to the praise of His glory.


 I am glad we can agree on many other portions of scripture and the truth of the saving work of our Lord .


----------



## JP Wallace

Andrew

While knowing what you mean, the position which you impute to baptists that baptism is a "public declaration" is not actually the universal position, though I agree that far too many Reformed Baptists practice baptism with that emphasis, and therefore I would say that this is not the difference between this baptist and my paedobaptist friends.

Here are some quotes from Benjamin Keach's catechism which make it clear a) that baptism (in my opinion) is rightly understood as a "means of grace" and b) is effectual, through faith and by the Spirit's working, unto salvation, by communicating to the believer the benefits of redemption.

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

The London Confession of Faith 1689 is a bit more ambiguous, and even Keach does not express baptism in terms of "seal" but many of us are quite happy with that language as well.


----------



## Herald

JP, as an RB I object to describing baptism as a seal. I view the seal for a believer being the work of regeneration as done by the Spirit. But now I have taken us completely off topic. 

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## JP Wallace

Bill,

We ought not to discuss this here, but lest you think I am way off base here, it appears to me that the that the early 17th century baptists did not have any problems speaking of baptism as being a seal i.e Keach, Garner, Lawrence etc. Indeed it seems for them that they could not understand how baptism could be a means of grace and not a seal. 

Lawrence
"For what Baptism finds, it seals; although it doth also exhibit more of the same kinde; Baptism, and so all the Ordinances of Christ those we call sacraments, seal up what is already, else how could it be a Seal, but doth also convey more of the same"


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that paedos MUST charge us baptists with grievous sin and it might be logical to conclude that we baptists ought not to expect that same measure of blessings on our children as those who baptize their children since we are intentionally witholding baptism from these little ones. But, again, I don't see any difference in future faith between those raised in Christian homes and denied baptism or those baptized as infants and raised in Chrsitian homes. I.e. baptism "does" nothing it seems without faith. And if it does nothing without faith, why not wait until faith is at least professed.
> 
> If I am putting my children at a disadvantage by refusing to baptize them until they give a profession of faith, then someone ought to be able to articulate what this disadvantage is. And given the disadvantage, we should expect God to bless the children of paedobaptists much more than the children of credo-baptists and make good doctrine visible by results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergy, you're conflating two separate things. On the one hand you're reacting against the charge made by paedobaptists that credobaptist parents are guilty of grievous sin because they do not baptize their children. Since both you and I have been on the board for a few years we should accept that charge as the default paedobaptist position. In other words we should not be taken by surprise. We believe paedobaptists sin by applying the sign to unworthy recipients. There is no secret here between both camps. It's a disagreement that we've learning to tolerate on the Puritan Board. So, on this part of the discussion you are stating the obvious.
> 
> You then make this statement, "I don't see any difference in future faith between those raised in Christian homes and denied baptism or those baptized as infants and raised in Chrsitian homes. I.e. baptism "does" nothing it seems without faith. And if it does nothing without faith, why not wait until faith is at least professed. If I am putting my children at a disadvantage by refusing to baptize them until they give a profession of faith, then someone ought to be able to articulate what this disadvantage is. And given the disadvantage, we should expect God to bless the children of paedobaptists much more than the children of credo-baptists and make good doctrine visible by results." This is where you stray off base. You're unwittingly transposing a limiting view of God's grace upon anyone who is in error. God blesses us in spite of our sin. I can easily say that paedobaptists place their children under a false hope by illegitimately baptizing them. And, while that is possible (that children may grow up trusting in their baptism and not Christ), we must not assume that we can determine to whom God dispenses his saving grace. The fact is that Baptist and Presbyterian parents are just as likely to raise their children with a knowledge of the Gospel. The same is true for the converse; that negligent parents, Baptist and Presbyterian, will withhold presenting a solid Gospel witness to their children. Along the way faithful parents will be imperfect in their parenting. They will display inconsistencies in word and deed. Yet, God's grace and mercy is greater than the shortcomings, sin, and the inconsistency of men. God will bless even when we don't deserve it.
Click to expand...

 


Does participation in the means of grace help us out spiritually? 

Infants participate in one means of grace, baptism; shouldn't we expect this to have some advantage?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Does participation in the means of grace help us out spiritually?
> 
> Infants participate in one means of grace, baptism; shouldn't we expect this to have some advantage?


 
Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace. When we speak of "advantage" we are bound to look at it in a twofold way. For all who are baptised there is the visible advantage of being included among the number of God's covenant people and being brought up in the consciousness of calling upon God. For the elect there is a further invisible benefit in that such consciousness is blessed by the Holy Spirit to be the means of their eternal salvation.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Does participation in the means of grace help us out spiritually?
> 
> Infants participate in one means of grace, baptism; shouldn't we expect this to have some advantage?



For the believer, participation in a means of grace does help us spiritually. It encourages, strengthens, and comforts us. But I would dispute your contention that "infants participate in one means of grace, baptism..." Infants may be subjected to baptism, but they are illegitimate recipients of the ordinance. If there is any means of grace for an infant it is being raised in a Christian home where the infant is exposed to a Gospel witness. That advantage is not the exclusive realm of infants born into credo or paedo homes. It is an advantage provided to any infant born into a Christian home that faithfully declares the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum

Got it, Bill.


----------



## TimV

Herald said:


> they are illegitimate recipients of the ordinance.



As are those who thought they were Christians at 26 years old and were baptized then. Which is why, when the guy decides he really wasn't a Christian until 38 his church would require he get baptized again.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are illegitimate recipients of the ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As are those who thought they were Christians at 26 years old and were baptized then. Which is why, when the guy decides he really wasn't a Christian until 38 his church would require he get baptized again.
Click to expand...


Tim, I'm certainly not going to argue that the person who has not placed his faith in Christ, and submits to baptism, is a legitimate recipient. He's not. But, as a credobaptist, I believe scripture teaches that the sign is to be applied only to those who believe. That some would deceive (or self-deceive) does not nullify the command.


----------



## Peairtach

The Spirit can and does use baptism and the Lord's Supper along with the Word to convert the unsaved. Even being present at a baptism or Lord's Supper while not being baptised or partaking of the Lord's Supper can be blessed to the unconverted along with the Word. 

And in the case of people who have been baptised as infants and exposed to consistent Covenant Theology, compared to those who have not but were brought up in Reformed Baptist homes with a less consistent Covenant Theology, it is probably impossible to calculate how important that difference is.

Even if we had accurate comparison of numbers saved, and remember that many adults and infants are included outwardly in the covenant administration by baptism that shouldn't be, that would not be decisive, because it depends on the persons response to their baptism and Christian upbringing, and that depends on the providence and saving power of God.

But if people who were baptised don't believe there is nothing wrong with baptism and God or His promise, but there is something wrong with them i.e. rebellious unbelief before great blessing and great light.



> What advantage then hath the Jew (or Christian)? or what profit is there of circumcision (or baptism)? Much every way: *chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.* For what if *some* did not believe? *shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?* (Romans 3:1-3, KJV)



*Pergy*


> (1) God's promises don't count for much because a great many baptized children are not saved



If the Reformed Baptist is therefore saying that the promises of God respecting children of believers are nothing

(a) It shows just how far Baptists are willing to go to be consistent in their position.

(b) It remains unexplained how the promises of God respecting the children of believers were nothing under the Old Covenant, when many children that were within that covenant administration, many of them properly so, failed to believe.

It would be more profitable for both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian parents and biblical scholars to accept that there are (conditional) biblical promises respecting children, study their nature closely, and work out how they operate.


----------



## TimV

Herald said:


> But, as a credobaptist, I believe scripture teaches that the sign is to be applied only to those who believe. That some would deceive (or self-deceive) does not nullify the command.



So you would rebaptize under those circumstances?


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, as a credobaptist, I believe scripture teaches that the sign is to be applied only to those who believe. That some would deceive (or self-deceive) does not nullify the command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rebaptize under those circumstances?
Click to expand...


If you're asking me personally I would say, "no" in the circumstance you have provided. There are too many variables involved. How do we know if the person who was baptized at 26 didn't really believe but just fail to display evidence until later? We don't. I would counsel that individual to look at the substance behind baptism; namely their spiritual death, burial and resurrection in Christ. The sign of baptism doesn't change because of the faith, or lack thereof, of the recipient.


----------



## TimV

What would be the minimum age where you wouldn't rebaptize if a person claimed he wasn't really a Christian at the time of his first baptism?


----------



## Herald

Tim, I do not believe nor practice rebaptism.


----------



## TimV

Does that include infant baptism? Would you require a child who was baptized at 1 month to be rebaptized before joining your church?


----------



## AThornquist

If the person wasn't a believer when he took the dunk at 26, how would being baptized at 38 be a true re-baptism? If only believers are to be baptized, why wouldn't the person, knowing that he was previously deceived, be considered a candidate for a believer's baptism? And by the way, I was immersed at the age of 7 when I professed Christ in order to get attention. I wasn't born again. Later, when I was actually converted, I was baptized at 18. My situation seems similar to the hypothetical one being discussed, and I don't think my baptism at 18 was a _re_-baptism because it _was_ my baptism.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> Does that include infant baptism? Would you require a child who was baptized at 1 month to be rebaptized before joining your church?



Tim, since I believe scripture does not give a positive command for infant baptism the practice is a violation of the RPW, and hence, prohibited. Therefore, I do not consider infant baptism to be a valid baptism. A person who has never been baptized upon a profession of faith will have to baptized, effectively for the first time, in order to join our church.


----------



## TimV

So the minimum age would be correlated to the ability to talk. Ok, thanks, I remember now from the discussion we had about my Down's syndrome son who can't give a profession.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> So the minimum age would be correlated to the ability to talk. Ok, thanks, I remember now from the discussion we had about my Down's syndrome son who can't give a profession.



Tim, why is it that you seem intent on misrepresenting the Reformed Baptist position? Baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith. If someone is not able to make a credible profession of faith it does not mean they are beyond salvation. 10.2 of the 1689 LBC states, "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; *so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word*." The sign does not convey salvation. Arguing for the sign to be applied, in the absence of faith, may seem therapeutic for a parent, but the Reformed Baptist hermeneutic believes it is prohibited by scripture. I'm not divulging a state secret here. Some Reformed Baptists are gun shy and afraid to speak bluntly about it out of fear of being labeled or attacked. But it's what we believe scripture teaches and both our conscience and conviction should be held captive to that.


----------



## Phil D.

I think that paedobaptists face a similar "dilemma" as the one under discussion. Take for instance the following theoretical scenario: The newly saved parents (or parent) of a number of children join an evangelical paedobaptist church. For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose the children are 3 months, 1½, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17... years in age. (Alright, so it would be a really large family, but it serves to shape and inform the illustration.) If none of the children profess or demonstrate conversion, which of them should be baptized? I’ve read about some churches that address these kinds of predicaments by establishing and enforcing an official age cutoff of 12. But are they really then saying that on the sole basis of the children’s physical age they would baptize the 12-year-old, but not the 13 or 14-year-olds? Regardless of where this kind of arbitrary age limit is placed, one can go down the line asking the same question: Would you really baptize a 1½-year-old, but not a 3-year-old?—or a 7-year-old, but not an 8 or 9-year-old?—etcetera? And of course this also raises the important question of what clear biblical warrant there is for setting the decided upon cut-off age.


----------



## jd.morrison

Phil D. said:


> I've read about some churches that address these kinds of predicaments by establishing and enforcing an official age cutoff of 12. But are they really then saying that on the sole basis of the children's physical age they would baptize the 12-year-old, but not the 13 or 14-year-olds? Regardless of where this kind of arbitrary age limit is placed, one can go down the line asking the same question: Would you really baptize a 1½-year-old, but not a 3-year-old?—or a 7-year-old, but not an 8 or 9-year-old? etcetera? And of course this also raises the important question of what clear biblical warrant there is for setting the decided upon cut-off age.


 
Would not the correct action be to baptize the entire household, adopted children included? If they are under the headship of the father then they are to be baptized.


----------



## Pergamum

Richard Tallach said:


> The Spirit can and does use baptism and the Lord's Supper along with the Word to convert the unsaved. Even being present at a baptism or Lord's Supper while not being baptised or partaking of the Lord's Supper can be blessed to the unconverted along with the Word.
> 
> And in the case of people who have been baptised as infants and exposed to consistent Covenant Theology, compared to those who have not but were brought up in Reformed Baptist homes with a less consistent Covenant Theology, it is probably impossible to calculate how important that difference is.
> 
> Even if we had accurate comparison of numbers saved, and remember that many adults and infants are included outwardly in the covenant administration by baptism that shouldn't be, that would not be decisive, because it depends on the persons response to their baptism and Christian upbringing, and that depends on the providence and saving power of God.
> 
> But if people who were baptised don't believe there is nothing wrong with baptism and God or His promise, but there is something wrong with them i.e. rebellious unbelief before great blessing and great light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What advantage then hath the Jew (or Christian)? or what profit is there of circumcision (or baptism)? Much every way: *chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.* For what if *some* did not believe? *shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?* (Romans 3:1-3, KJV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pergy*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) God's promises don't count for much because a great many baptized children are not saved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Reformed Baptist is therefore saying that the promises of God respecting children of believers are nothing
> 
> (a) It shows just how far Baptists are willing to go to be consistent in their position.
> 
> (b) It remains unexplained how the promises of God respecting the children of believers were nothing under the Old Covenant, when many children that were within that covenant administration, many of them properly so, failed to believe.
> 
> It would be more profitable for both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian parents and biblical scholars to accept that there are (conditional) biblical promises respecting children, study their nature closely, and work out how they operate.
Click to expand...



Richard, 

I believe that baptism is a means of grace, but only to a worthy recipient. An unknowing baby is not a worthy recipient and therefore baptism does nothing. If baptism is only a means of grace based upon the faith of the recipient, then why not wait until at least a profession of that faith is exhibited.

I believe that, within the basic continuity of the covenant of grace, there is enough discontinuity such that both males and females can be baptised (baptism and circumcision being analogous but not identitical) and that only believers are to be baptized. 



> accept that there are (conditional) biblical promises respecting children



Your comment about conditional promises is a very good point. I think it applies to nurture in the household (raise a child in the Lord and he will usually believe also), but I don't believe this is a reason to baptize babies. I think this is a very strong point you have put forward and I need to think about it some.

---------- Post added at 03:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> The Spirit can and does use baptism and the Lord's Supper along with the Word to convert the unsaved. Even being present at a baptism or Lord's Supper while not being baptised or partaking of the Lord's Supper can be blessed to the unconverted along with the Word.
> 
> And in the case of people who have been baptised as infants and exposed to consistent Covenant Theology, compared to those who have not but were brought up in Reformed Baptist homes with a less consistent Covenant Theology, it is probably impossible to calculate how important that difference is.
> 
> Even if we had accurate comparison of numbers saved, and remember that many adults and infants are included outwardly in the covenant administration by baptism that shouldn't be, that would not be decisive, because it depends on the persons response to their baptism and Christian upbringing, and that depends on the providence and saving power of God.
> 
> But if people who were baptised don't believe there is nothing wrong with baptism and God or His promise, but there is something wrong with them i.e. rebellious unbelief before great blessing and great light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What advantage then hath the Jew (or Christian)? or what profit is there of circumcision (or baptism)? Much every way: *chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.* For what if *some* did not believe? *shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?* (Romans 3:1-3, KJV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pergy*
> 
> 
> 
> (1) God's promises don't count for much because a great many baptized children are not saved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Reformed Baptist is therefore saying that the promises of God respecting children of believers are nothing
> 
> (a) It shows just how far Baptists are willing to go to be consistent in their position.
> 
> (b) It remains unexplained how the promises of God respecting the children of believers were nothing under the Old Covenant, when many children that were within that covenant administration, many of them properly so, failed to believe.
> 
> It would be more profitable for both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian parents and biblical scholars to accept that there are (conditional) biblical promises respecting children, study their nature closely, and work out how they operate.
Click to expand...




Richard, 

I believe that baptism is a means of grace to a worthy recipient. A worthy recipient is one who receives baptism with faith. Therefore, baptism does nothing to an unknowing infant (unless they somehow have faith).

I believe in the basic unity of the covenant of grace. However, within that basic unity there is much discontinuity. One discontinuity is that while OT Israel after the flesh had all of their males circumcized, in the New Covenant only those who believe are to receive baptism. The blessings of the new covenant are expanded in that these blessings flow to the whole world and the promises are unbreakable (Jer. 31).

Your last comment about conditional promises is very good. The basic promise of Scripture is that if we raise our children knowing the Lord, then they will not depart from that good path. This is conditional and may come to pass as a general rule, though not 100% true. However, I still do not yet see this same conditionality regarding true members of the New Covenant.

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 AM ----------




Herald said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, as a credobaptist, I believe scripture teaches that the sign is to be applied only to those who believe. That some would deceive (or self-deceive) does not nullify the command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rebaptize under those circumstances?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're asking me personally I would say, "no" in the circumstance you have provided. There are too many variables involved. How do we know if the person who was baptized at 26 didn't really believe but just fail to display evidence until later? We don't. I would counsel that individual to look at the substance behind baptism; namely their spiritual death, burial and resurrection in Christ. The sign of baptism doesn't change because of the faith, or lack thereof, of the recipient.
Click to expand...

 
Bill, is this really a consistent baptist answer? 

The sign of baptism doesn't change due to lack of faith? If the sign of baptism is the recipient's death, burial and resurrection with Christ in accordance with Romans 6:4, then, yes, the thing being signified is simply not there (dying and being reborn in Christ). 

To be consistent, you would need to re-baptize (or truly baptize for the first time) those that were immersed earlier but have sufficent doubts as to their conversioin at that point.


Can you explain further?

---------- Post added at 03:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------




jd.morrison said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read about some churches that address these kinds of predicaments by establishing and enforcing an official age cutoff of 12. But are they really then saying that on the sole basis of the children's physical age they would baptize the 12-year-old, but not the 13 or 14-year-olds? Regardless of where this kind of arbitrary age limit is placed, one can go down the line asking the same question: Would you really baptize a 1½-year-old, but not a 3-year-old?—or a 7-year-old, but not an 8 or 9-year-old? etcetera? And of course this also raises the important question of what clear biblical warrant there is for setting the decided upon cut-off age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would not the correct action be to baptize the entire household, adopted children included? If they are under the headship of the father then they are to be baptized.
Click to expand...

 
Don't forget the manservants and maidservants, too.


----------



## Peairtach

> Your last comment about conditional promises is very good. The basic promise of Scripture is that if we raise our children knowing the Lord, then they will not depart from that good path. This is conditional and may come to pass as a general rule, though not 100% true. However, I still do not yet see this same conditionality regarding true members of the New Covenant.



I don't see this conditionality respecting those who are truly born again either - they will certainly be saved. I do see it in those who enter the covenant as adults or children but who aren't born again. You can be in the external administration of the covenant, before God, and yet not have the internal reality.

The Q of how the covenant promises operate respecting the children of believers probably merits further study and explanation by Reformed scholars.

On the one hand there are those that put so much onus on correct nurture by parents leading to faith in the child that they maybe go too far in an unbiblical manner

e.g. Covenant Children - Faith Presbyterian Church

e.g. Amazon.com: Will My Children Go to Heaven?: Hope and Help for Believing Parents (9780875522463): Edward N. Gross: Books

I must say I like Gross's book because although it goes maybe too far in the way of saying that certain conditions must be fulfilled and faith will follow, it does set forth the biblical promises regarding the children of God's people and leave room for further thought.

On the other hand others, such as this man, Jeff Meyers, about whom I know little, have rightly pointed out that people like Rayburn may be overstating their case:

Covenant Succession

Along with the good points that Myers makes, it is also the case that Jesus had four younger brothers and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3). So these siblings of Jesus' were growing up in Mary and Josephs' godly household, with a sinless elder brother. But we only read of two of them believing (Yehudah and Ya'acov) and that only at the time of the resurrection.

But whether we are Baptists or Presbyterians we shouldn't deny or despise the promises of God in the Bible respecting children, but try to understand them better as individuals, and collectively as the Church.


----------



## exceptyerepent

I must be missing something here. Our Lord instituted baptism with the instructions "...make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I have commanded you."

Baptism FOLLOWS the making of a disciple as an outward picture of the new convert's dying to sin and being raised to newness of life (regeneration). He didn't say baptize them and then make them disciples.


----------



## MW

exceptyerepent said:


> I must be missing something here. Our Lord instituted baptism with the instructions "...make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I have commanded you."
> 
> Baptism FOLLOWS the making of a disciple as an outward picture of the new convert's dying to sin and being raised to newness of life (regeneration). He didn't say baptize them and then make them disciples.


 
If the words are carefully observed, "baptising" and "teaching" do not follow "making disciples" but are the means of carrying out the commission. The persons to be baptised are described by the term "nations" (ethne), in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, "and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," Gen. 12:3.


----------



## Herald

exceptyerepent said:


> I must be missing something here. Our Lord instituted baptism with the instructions "...make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I have commanded you."
> 
> Baptism FOLLOWS the making of a disciple as an outward picture of the new convert's dying to sin and being raised to newness of life (regeneration). He didn't say baptize them and then make them disciples.



Please amend your signature in keeping with board requirements. You will find the requirements here: http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq First and last name must be used. 

Thank you.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Bill, is this really a consistent baptist answer?



Pergy, it may not be a consistent mainline Baptist answer, but I believe it to be a consistent covenantal Baptist answer.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> exceptyerepent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must be missing something here. Our Lord instituted baptism with the instructions "...make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them whatsoever I have commanded you."
> 
> Baptism FOLLOWS the making of a disciple as an outward picture of the new convert's dying to sin and being raised to newness of life (regeneration). He didn't say baptize them and then make them disciples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the words are carefully observed, "baptising" and "teaching" do not follow "making disciples" but are the means of carrying out the commission. The persons to be baptised are described by the term "nations" (ethne), in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, "and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," Gen. 12:3.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I agree with this. Thanks. A chronological formula is not given and the Great Commission does not prove credobaptism, only that we are both to disciple and to baptize.

---------- Post added at 12:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 AM ----------




Herald said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, is this really a consistent baptist answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergy, it may not be a consistent mainline Baptist answer, but I believe it to be a consistent covenantal Baptist answer.
Click to expand...

 
Bill, can you explain further. I know a pastor that was baptized at 18 and then later became convinced that he was not saved until age 30 or so. He got rebaptized (or truly baptized) at age 30 after his immersion at 18.

What would you have advised this man who was convinced that he was not saved until age 30? It seems that a consistent baptist answer would applaud his baptism at 30.


----------



## Herald

Pergy,

Not to dodge your question, but allow me to answer your question with a question. What would happen if the pastor you used as an example announces at age 40 that he really wasn't saved at age 30? We have to be careful of trying to be so precise in applying the sign that we can't see the spiritual forest for the trees. The significance in baptism is in what it represents. I would not want to get into the practice of some Baptist churches that have been known to rebaptize individuals multiple times because they may not have been saved during prior baptisms. I've been criticized as wanting to have my cake and eat it to. In other words, borrow the best of paedobaptism and credobaptism. I reject that assertion. Baptism is not meant to function as a revolving door.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Well, I may be the only Presbyterian willing to say it, but judging by the saintly behavior of my 5 kids I am compelled to say that their baptism has made all the difference.


----------



## exceptyerepent

A couple examples of baptism after conversion would be Philip who baptized the Ethiopian eunich after he believed, and Peter's instruction to the Jews to repent and be baptized. Baptism followed conversion it wasn't prior to.

For baptism to be an outward indicator of an inward reality I can't see how it would make sense to be baptized before being saved. Where would scripture instruct that or give a valid example?


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Pergy,
> 
> Not to dodge your question, but allow me to answer your question with a question. What would happen if the pastor you used as an example announces at age 40 that he really wasn't saved at age 30? We have to be careful of trying to be so precise in applying the sign that we can't see the spiritual forest for the trees. The significance in baptism is in what it represents. I would not want to get into the practice of some Baptist churches that have been known to rebaptize individuals multiple times because they may not have been saved during prior baptisms. I've been criticized as wanting to have my cake and eat it to. In other words, borrow the best of paedobaptism and credobaptism. I reject that assertion. Baptism is not meant to function as a revolving door.


 
Bill,

It would appear that to be consistent as credobaptists we must then baptize this pastor every decade if he is convinced of his unconverted state previously. At 18, 30, 40, 50, 60, until death.

If 10 years of unconverted living does not matter or the precise timing of baptism does not matter, then this proves the paedo argument. 

My son professed and was baptized at 6; if he was baptized as an infant, there would thus be only 6 years of difference between his baptism and his conversion. But with the case of the pastor who decides again at both 30 and then 40 that he was previously unconverted, if you did not advocate re-baptism (or true first baptism) after conversion, there would be a whole 10 years between his baptism at first and then his true profession, a space much larger than many paedo children experience.

---------- Post added at 01:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 AM ----------

p.s. this seeming requirement to "rebaptize" or immerse multiple times until one truly is baptized for the first time, seems to be one of the chief weaknesses of the credobaptist argument. But I see no other way around it.

---------- Post added at 01:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> Well, I may be the only Presbyterian willing to say it, but judging by the saintly behavior of my 5 kids I am compelled to say that their baptism has made all the difference.


 
I would place my money that it is on your wife's fine nurture of the kids.


----------



## Herald

Pergy,

We obviously are not in agreement here. I don't believe for one moment I have proved the paedo point. I would like to develop this further but not in this thread. Give me some time to forward to you a more thorough defense of what I believe to be a consistent covenantal Baptist hermeneutic.


----------



## MW

exceptyerepent said:


> For baptism to be an outward indicator of an inward reality I can't see how it would make sense to be baptized before being saved. Where would scripture instruct that or give a valid example?


 
Infants are saved; baptism is a sign of salvation; therefore infants are administered the sign of baptism.

Scripture is unanimous in its testimony to the practice. In the circumcising of infants under the Abrahamic covenant (a covenant of promise); in the baptising of infants in the Red Sea, which was considered a privilege similar to baptism under the New Testament; in David's recognition that his faith was in God from the womb, who also considered himself baptised in the Red Sea; in the calling of men like Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb; in Jesus humbling Himself to become a babe in the womb of the virgin for the salvation of sinners; in Jesus taking up little infants in His arms and blessing them, pronouncing that of such is the kingdom of heaven; in the commission to the ministers of Christ to make disciples of nations, baptising and teaching them; in the testimony of the apostles that the promise is for the members of the visible church and their children; in the practice of the apostles in baptising households upon the faith of the head of a household; in the apostle Paul's insistence that children of believers are holy; in his own example of addressing them as saints; in calling on parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord -- holy Scripture leaves us in no doubt as to the will of the Lord concerning the inclusion of infants.

Further, there is no New Testament revelation to the effect that infants of believers are to be excluded from the membership of the visible church. It is preposterous and presumptuous for the overseers of the church to exclude or include any group of people from the fellowship of the church without divine warrant. When one considers the very detailed process and the express revelation whereby Gentiles came to be included as fellow members of the household of God, the silence of the New Testament relative to the exclusion of infants from that fellowship is a sure statement of their continued inclusion.


----------



## exceptyerepent

Infant salvation? Is that Reformed theology or Australian Free theology?


----------



## au5t1n

exceptyerepent said:


> Infant salvation? Is that Reformed theology or Australian Free theology?


 
It's in all the Reformed confessions including the 1689 London Baptist confession:



> Chapter 10, Of Effectual Calling
> ...
> Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 10 John 3:3, 5, 6
> 11 John 3:8



See also:

Ps. 22:9-10 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Lk. 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


----------



## jd.morrison

exceptyerepent said:


> Infant salvation? Is that Reformed theology or Australian Free theology?


Yeah, that would be the historic theology of the Reformers, including I do believe Martin Luther on this subject. Furthermore scripture has more than a few examples of infants knowing God from the womb, as Armourbearer demonstrated.


----------



## MW

exceptyerepent said:


> Infant salvation? Is that Reformed theology or Australian Free theology?


 
One and the same.


----------



## seajayrice

armourbearer said:


> exceptyerepent said:
> 
> 
> 
> For baptism to be an outward indicator of an inward reality I can't see how it would make sense to be baptized before being saved. Where would scripture instruct that or give a valid example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are saved; baptism is a sign of salvation; therefore infants are administered the sign of baptism.
> 
> Scripture is unanimous in its testimony to the practice. In the circumcising of infants under the Abrahamic covenant (a covenant of promise); in the baptising of infants in the Red Sea, which was considered a privilege similar to baptism under the New Testament; in David's recognition that his faith was in God from the womb, who also considered himself baptised in the Red Sea; in the calling of men like Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb; in Jesus humbling Himself to become a babe in the womb of the virgin for the salvation of sinners; in Jesus taking up little infants in His arms and blessing them, pronouncing that of such is the kingdom of heaven; in the commission to the ministers of Christ to make disciples of nations, baptising and teaching them; in the testimony of the apostles that the promise is for the members of the visible church and their children; in the practice of the apostles in baptising households upon the faith of the head of a household; in the apostle Paul's insistence that children of believers are holy; in his own example of addressing them as saints; in calling on parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord -- holy Scripture leaves us in no doubt as to the will of the Lord concerning the inclusion of infants.
> 
> Further, there is no New Testament revelation to the effect that infants of believers are to be excluded from the membership of the visible church. It is preposterous and presumptuous for the overseers of the church to exclude or include any group of people from the fellowship of the church without divine warrant. When one considers the very detailed process and the express revelation whereby Gentiles came to be included as fellow members of the household of God, the silence of the New Testament relative to the exclusion of infants from that fellowship is a sure statement of their continued inclusion.
Click to expand...

 
I don’t understand the post. Do you assert that all covenant infants are saved?


----------



## Herald

My, my how this thread has taken a life of its own. But since it seems to be maintaining a civil tone I suppose it should continue. 

Infant salvation is a topic that I have never been completely at peace with. I understand the John the Baptist argument, but that simply is not normative. It it were we'd never see apostates in Christian families. But on the other side of the coin I do believe God works within believing families. I mean, it's only common sense. Who is more likely to declare the Gospel to their children, a believing family or an unbelieving family? There are no guarantees, of course. Look at Jesus' own family:



> John 7:5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.



The 1689 LBC renders a good treatment to this problem by using the term _elect_ infants. The term presupposes there are two groups of infants: elect and non-elect. Do we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the spiritual condition of each infant who is born; whether it be into a believing or unbelieving family? How can we? If someone says, "All infants born into believing (covenant) families are saved" then what do we say if a child born into such a household grows up into a rank unbeliever? If I understand the paedobaptist position I believe they would say that they assume their children are saved unless they prove otherwise by their behavior. And we know that some paedobaptist children, just like credobaptist children, do become adult unbelievers. Since none of us believes an saved person can become unsaved, how can we make a iron clad statement that _all _infants are saved? We can assume. We can expect. We can trust. But can we speak with dogmatism and certainty?


----------



## Peairtach

I was baptised as a baby, maybe baptised with/by the Spirit by Christ into Himself (regeneration) at about 13 years, and believe and feel no need to be baptised with water again.

I derive great spiritual blessing and benefit in contemplating my baptism in water and its sacramental union to my regeneration.

Regeneration only happens once to any person, therefore baptism should only happen once.


----------



## Grimmson

seajayrice said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exceptyerepent said:
> 
> 
> 
> For baptism to be an outward indicator of an inward reality I can't see how it would make sense to be baptized before being saved. Where would scripture instruct that or give a valid example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are saved; baptism is a sign of salvation; therefore infants are administered the sign of baptism.
> 
> Scripture is unanimous in its testimony to the practice. In the circumcising of infants under the Abrahamic covenant (a covenant of promise); in the baptising of infants in the Red Sea, which was considered a privilege similar to baptism under the New Testament; in David's recognition that his faith was in God from the womb, who also considered himself baptised in the Red Sea; in the calling of men like Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb; in Jesus humbling Himself to become a babe in the womb of the virgin for the salvation of sinners; in Jesus taking up little infants in His arms and blessing them, pronouncing that of such is the kingdom of heaven; in the commission to the ministers of Christ to make disciples of nations, baptising and teaching them; in the testimony of the apostles that the promise is for the members of the visible church and their children; in the practice of the apostles in baptising households upon the faith of the head of a household; in the apostle Paul's insistence that children of believers are holy; in his own example of addressing them as saints; in calling on parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord -- holy Scripture leaves us in no doubt as to the will of the Lord concerning the inclusion of infants.
> 
> Further, there is no New Testament revelation to the effect that infants of believers are to be excluded from the membership of the visible church. It is preposterous and presumptuous for the overseers of the church to exclude or include any group of people from the fellowship of the church without divine warrant. When one considers the very detailed process and the express revelation whereby Gentiles came to be included as fellow members of the household of God, the silence of the New Testament relative to the exclusion of infants from that fellowship is a sure statement of their continued inclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t understand the post. Do you assert that all covenant infants are saved?
Click to expand...

 
I would make the case that is the position of Dort, as long as their parents within the covenant are also godly:



> 1.17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
> 
> Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.


----------



## Phil D.

Richard Tallach said:


> On the other hand others, such as this man, Jeff Meyers, about whom I know little, have rightly pointed out that people like Rayburn may be overstating their case:



POI: Meyers is a leading figure in the FV movement, being one of the original signories of A Joint Federal Vision Profession.

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------




Herald said:


> The significance in baptism is in what it represents. I would not want to get into the practice of some Baptist churches that have been known to rebaptize individuals multiple times because they may not have been saved during prior baptisms.



Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?


----------



## Herald

Phil D. said:


> Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?



Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.


----------



## Phil D.

Herald said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.
Click to expand...


Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.


----------



## Herald

Phil D. said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.
Click to expand...


Phil, to be honest, the view I hold to is a minority among Baptists. The majority of Baptists will continue to dunk 'em as long as they think they need it. I believe that is a travesty. I mean, it's not like any of us (credo or paedo) are able to ascertain the condition of the heart. Presbyterians baptize adult converts on the same criteria that Baptists do, a credible profession. We are simply acknowledging an outward indication of faith. Church discipline exists to deal with those who, once baptized, display actions that would repudiate their faith. But even if a person struggles with unbelief (after being baptized), is that an indication that they are not saved? Could they not be in a period of disobedience of which they could repent? I believe we cheapen the ordinance by applying it over and over again to the same person. Baptism's relevance is not in the sign but in the substance the sign represents. I think some Baptists fear that if they hold to this view that it will somehow threaten the rest of what they believe. That is an unnecessary fear, but I certainly understand why they would have it.


----------



## Peairtach

*Phil*


> POI: Meyers is a leading figure in the FV movement, being one of the original signories of A Joint Federal Vision Profession.



Oh, he's a Visionista. Well, what he said on taking the idea of Covenant nurture leading to faith in a child, and Covenant succession, too far was good. 

But it's good to warn and be warned of his FV views.

*Phil*


> Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.



Well if the person is not converted his baptism (once) could be blessed to him along with the Word, once and if the Spirit of God shows him what his baptism reallly means.

It's good the mark of the Covenant isn't now circumcision and people were being "re-circumcised" on a regular basis when they displayed lack of faith. Painful!


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> It's good the mark of the Covenant isn't now circumcision and people were being "re-circumcised" on a regular basis when they displayed lack of faith. Painful!


----------



## Phil D.

Richard Tallach said:


> Phil
> Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.
> Well if the person is not converted his baptism (once) could be blessed to him along with the Word, once and if the Spirit of God shows him what his baptism reallly means.



That's exactly what I'm saying...

It's interesting, but I often hear paedos say that infant baptism is in fact based on faith - only it's the faith of one or both of the parents. Yet to really be accurate it still has to be said that it is based on these parents' credible profession of faith. I'm simply arguing that this standard is the only realistic one upon which baptism can EVER be administered. Conversion is progressive (Luke 22:32), and often messy. As such it seems that in many cases it may be extremely difficult to accurately judge (whether by oneself or others) exactly "when" regeneration happened - upon which "real" baptism can then be administered.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phil, to be honest, the view I hold to is a minority among Baptists. The majority of Baptists will continue to dunk 'em as long as they think they need it. I believe that is a travesty. I mean, it's not like any of us (credo or paedo) are able to ascertain the condition of the heart. Presbyterians baptize adult converts on the same criteria that Baptists do, a credible profession. We are simply acknowledging an outward indication of faith. Church discipline exists to deal with those who, once baptized, display actions that would repudiate their faith. But even if a person struggles with unbelief (after being baptized), is that an indication that they are not saved? Could they not be in a period of disobedience of which they could repent? I believe we cheapen the ordinance by applying it over and over again to the same person. Baptism's relevance is not in the sign but in the substance the sign represents. I think some Baptists fear that if they hold to this view that it will somehow threaten the rest of what they believe. That is an unnecessary fear, but I certainly understand why they would have it.
Click to expand...

 
Bill, 

Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist. 

If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?

I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes. 

Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance. 

It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way. 

Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.


--
--
--

Is this a fair summary?


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.



What do you mean by "the timing does not matter"? Did I indicate, or even infer, that baptism is to be administered to anyone other than a professing believer?



Pergamum said:


> If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?



Because expectation of salvation is not a reason to baptize. It is without scriptural warrant.





Pergamum said:


> I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.



My view is a minority among mainline Baptists, but I am far from the only covenantal Baptist to hold this view.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "the timing does not matter"? Did I indicate, or even infer, that baptism is to be administered to anyone other than a professing believer?
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because expectation of salvation is not a reason to baptize. It is without scriptural warrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My view is a minority among mainline Baptists, but I am far from the only covenantal Baptist to hold this view.
Click to expand...

 
If you had a person in your church convinced that they were not truly baptised at age 18 due to a false profession, but had true faith at age 30 instead, would you then baptize them? What about if they were again convinced absolutely at age 42 of the same thing? Would you then baptize them at age 42 if they remained convinced that they were a false professor at age 30? What about again at age 54?

If you say no, that is a gap of 12 years between a baptism at first followed by a true profession. Most infants who are baptized display some external evidences of faith before age 12. 

I feel that your minority view has sold the farm to the paedobaptists. 

However, the majority view of the baptists which would immerse again and again if the recipient was convinced of a previous false profession is very distasteful and is good fodder for paedos to poke fun at the baptists.

What is my way out of this predicament? Please explain your view further.


----------



## jd.morrison

This notion of does infants being baptized give them greater chance of being saved over and against those who are not seems so absolutely and entirely silly to me. This is not "Outcome Based" Sacraments... Asking such questions seems so entirely un-Reformed and presumes to get at the secret will of God, as only God knows His elect and he has not revealed who they are to us prior to their regeneration, and then we only know by the fruit of a persons entire life, and even then we can error.

===================

It is also very much Lutheran...


----------



## MW

seajayrice said:


> Do you assert that all covenant infants are saved?


 
There was no use of "all" in my post. There is therefore no basis for raising the question.


----------



## Herald

Pergy,

The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that. 

First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart. 

Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent. 

It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign _and _a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:



> 17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*



How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us. 

Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives. 

Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between. 

Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a _covenantal _Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Pergy,
> 
> The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that.
> 
> First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart.
> 
> Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent.
> 
> It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign _and _a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us.
> 
> Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives.
> 
> Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between.
> 
> Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a _covenantal _Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.
Click to expand...

 
If you are not willing to "re-baptize" or truly baptize a new believer, then what would you do with new believers who were baptized as babies? 

Is the baptism of an infant, then, an invalid baptism or merely an irregular one? Does baptism by means other than immersion count as invalid or merely irregular? Does baptism of infants who do not yet have a credible profession of faith then an irregular or an invalid baptism?

P.s. Acts 19:1-5 gives an instance fo rebaptism but I am not sure if this has any bearing on our discussion. 

If the substance behind baptism is an outward sign pointing to an inward reality of the new birth, then the baptism of an unbeliever is no true baptism. Therefore, to be consistent only a baptism occuring AFTER a credible profession of faith which points to the new birth is a valid baptism. If the recipient of baptism believes he has only backslid, then yes, there is no need for him to be re-baptized. But, if the recipient is convinced that his previous profession of faith was a false one, then I see no other choice but to baptize him truly (this is no re-baptism).

I don't understand why you ask me whether I am truly a covenantal baptist. Most all Reformed Baptists I know would side with me and tell you that you are being inconsistent and have already given up one of the main arguments against paedobaptism. Most Reformed Baptists that I know count a baptism without faith and repentance or a baptism by the wrong mode to be invalid and not a true baptism. No baptist advocates "re-baptism" - we merely advocate one baptism in the Scriptural manner.

If I remember correctly, John Piper's church covered this issue a year or two ago when there was a motion made about receiving people into church membership who were baptized as infants. I believe that Piper's church voted against such a move. Do you recall the details?

You have admitted that your position is a minority one; why is that? Perhaps because it is inconsistent with the belief in believer's baptism by immersion?

---------- Post added at 04:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------




Herald said:


> Pergy,
> 
> The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that.
> 
> First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart.
> 
> Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent.
> 
> It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign _and _a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us.
> 
> Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives.
> 
> Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between.
> 
> Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a _covenantal _Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.
Click to expand...

 
If you are not willing to "re-baptize" or truly baptize a new believer, then what would you do with new believers who were baptized as babies? 

Is the baptism of an infant, then, an invalid baptism or merely an irregular one? Does baptism by means other than immersion count as invalid or merely irregular? Does baptism of infants who do not yet have a credible profession of faith then an irregular or an invalid baptism?

P.s. Acts 19:1-5 gives an instance fo rebaptism but I am not sure if this has any bearing on our discussion. 

If the substance behind baptism is an outward sign pointing to an inward reality of the new birth, then the baptism of an unbeliever is no true baptism. Therefore, to be consistent only a baptism occuring AFTER a credible profession of faith which points to the new birth is a valid baptism. If the recipient of baptism believes he has only backslid, then yes, there is no need for him to be re-baptized. But, if the recipient is convinced that his previous profession of faith was a false one, then I see no other choice but to baptize him truly (this is no re-baptism).

I don't understand why you ask me whether I am truly a covenantal baptist. Most all Reformed Baptists I know would side with me and tell you that you are being inconsistent and have already given up one of the main arguments against paedobaptism. Most Reformed Baptists that I know count a baptism without faith and repentance or a baptism by the wrong mode to be invalid and not a true baptism. No baptist advocates "re-baptism" - we merely advocate one baptism in the Scriptural manner.

If I remember correctly, John Piper's church covered this issue a year or two ago when there was a motion made about receiving people into church membership who were baptized as infants. I believe that Piper's church voted against such a move. Do you recall the details?

You have admitted that your position is a minority one; why is that? Perhaps because it is inconsistent with the belief in believer's baptism by immersion?


----------



## Pergamum

Pergamum said:


> An attempted summary:
> 
> So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.
> 
> Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.
> 
> It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.
> 
> Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.



Josh, note my attempted summary above.

---------- Post added at 06:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

It appears that baptism does nothing if not joined by faith. This appears to be a consensus that both credos and paedos can agree on.


----------



## JP Wallace

Bill that's about as clear and concise a view of my view of baptism as I have ever read (or ever expressed myself), apart from the aforementioned difference our view of baptism as a "seal". BTW I think my concept of that is that the HS does not actually "seal" until baptism is understood by true faith - but that's a side point.

The main point is that while I have never encountered a practical need for re-baptism in my ministry yet, that I would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea, and I believe I would take the route you set down. Ultimately the NT does not suggest, command or imply re-baptism, but as you so excellently point out it does demand church discipline. 

So Pergamum, slate down a second Reformed Baptist as being off the "mainline".


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,


Have you changed your position since you argued for the very same position that I am now advocating here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-re-baptism-church-membership-34473/

In that thread you ably defend the very same position I am now advocating when you say:





> Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.






and when you say:




> Todd, not trying to dodge the tough question here. RB's consider an infant baptism to be invalid. We belive in baptism upon a credible profession of faith. Therefore we would require a new member to be baptized in a valid manner. We do not consider this re-baptism but baptism being properly administered the first time. This is pretty standard practice for all Baptists, not just RB's.


----------



## Herald

Pergy, I do not consider an infant baptism to be a valid baptism because it is administered to an unworthy recipient. That is far different than the sign being applied upon a credible profession of faith.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Peairtach

> An attempted summary:
> 
> So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.



I don't think we can know enough of how the Spirit uses baptism.

My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households. Obviously in RB households that would mean that the child only saw baptisms of others, and there would be a slightly different story about the Covenant and Baptism to the child from the parents and pastors in the pulpit.



> Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.(Deut 10:16)



If it was worthwhile of Moses to remind the unconverted Israelites of the meaning of circumcision, it is worthwhile reminding unconverted covenant children in Presbyterian and RB churches of the meaning of baptism, although there will be a slightly different story, but not a fundamentally different Gospel. 

Therefore we should _do_ baptism the biblical way, as we are persuaded what is biblical and encourage the improvement of baptism by believers and unbelievers - although we are not infallible on who they are. 

But there are numerous other variables anyway. E.g. Hypothetically a child can be baptised and yet never have his/her baptism taught to him/her.

All talk of "chance" and "likelihood" is ridiculous on a Calvinistic MB. Doing baptism the right way may be important for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day we follow what we believe God has commanded us on this.


----------



## Herald

A brother I greatly respect told me why he doesn't participate in the baptism threads. He said they are a "time sink". For the purpose of this thread I agree. 

Pergy, mull over what I've said and see if you can make sense of it. I just can't keep restating the same things in different ways. 

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> A brother I greatly respect told me why he doesn't participate in the baptism threads. He said they are a "time sink". For the purpose of this thread I agree.
> 
> Pergy, mull over what I've said and see if you can make sense of it. I just can't keep restating the same things in different ways.
> 
> Sent using my most excellent Android device.


 
Yes, brother, I understand what you are saying. We seem to believe the very same thing, but we seem to apply these beliefs differently when it comes to an adult, already-baptised person that is CONVINCED of his previous unbelief (and convinced that he was not merely backslidden but actually a false professor). 

But no matter. Thanks for your interaction. I think I am done on this thread too. 


Thank you to all the paedos that participated. I like to banter, but I have learned more about how you reason and the reasons for baptizing infants. 

*An admission:* there does seem to be a promise to the children of believers that they, too, will believe. If paedobaptists baptize on the basis of that promise as well as their perceived obedience to the command, than I can certainly sympathize and understand their reasoning. 




Pergamum said:


> An attempted summary:
> 
> So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.
> 
> Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.
> 
> It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.
> 
> Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.




---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> An attempted summary:
> 
> So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can know enough of how the Spirit uses baptism.
> 
> My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households. Obviously in RB households that would mean that the child only saw baptisms of others, and there would be a slightly different story about the Covenant and Baptism to the child from the parents and pastors in the pulpit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.(Deut 10:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was worthwhile of Moses to remind the unconverted Israelites of the meaning of circumcision, it is worthwhile reminding unconverted covenant children in Presbyterian and RB churches of the meaning of baptism, although there will be a slightly different story, but not a fundamentally different Gospel.
> 
> Therefore we should _do_ baptism the biblical way, as we are persuaded what is biblical and encourage the improvement of baptism by believers and unbelievers - although we are not infallible on who they are.
> 
> But there are numerous other variables anyway. E.g. Hypothetically a child can be baptised and yet never have his/her baptism taught to him/her.
> 
> All talk of "chance" and "likelihood" is ridiculous on a Calvinistic MB. Doing baptism the right way may be important for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day we follow what we believe God has commanded us on this.
Click to expand...

 
Most paedos above denied that baptism does anything apart from faith. 



Richard Tallach said:


> My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households



I find this a troubling statement. Do other paedos agree with this?


*Finally, about "likelihood": * Do you believe that the children of believers are more likely to believe than the children of pagans? This appears to be so from the proverbs. We should expect that God will save the children of believers in large numbers.


----------



## Peairtach

> I find this a troubling statement. Do other paedos agree with this?



I couldn't speak for other paedos. The Spirit of God uses the Word to work on unbelievers, but ultimately they won't have saving faith unless He works on them irresistably. So the Spirit of God can use the Word along with the sacraments (another type of Word) on unbelievers, but at the end of the day unless He works irresistibly there will be no saving faith.

Sacraments must also be accompanied by the Word to be of any benefit/application to the saved or unsaved, and to engender saving faith there must be the sovereign irresistible grace of God the Holy Spirit.

There's nothing automatic about preaching the Gospel, administering the sacraments, praying for unbelievers, etc. It's not a slot machine or talisman. We are reliant on the sovereign mercy of God, and at the same time we are responsible to raise our children to the best of our ability by God's grace.

Moses believed it was worthwhile reminding unbelieving Israelites of their sacrament of circumcision and its meaning, and it would be the same Spirit of God that would have blessed that to the Israelites if any of them believed, so I don't see how it can be denied that unbelievers shouldn't be reminded of (their, if they are in a Presbyterian church) baptism and its meaning, and that this can't be blessed to them along with the Word.




> Finally, about "likelihood": Do you believe that the children of believers are more likely to believe than the children of pagans? This appears to be so from the proverbs. We should expect that God will save the children of believers in large numbers.



Yes. Although I can't give any easy answers about the human and proximate reasons why one believes and another doesn't.

See the examples here of good parenting not leading to salvation, on this link ("Covenant Succesion") from a post above:

*Quote from Richard Tallach*


> On the other hand others, such as this man, Jeff Meyers, about whom I know little, have rightly pointed out that people like Rayburn may be overstating their case:
> 
> Covenant Succession
> 
> Along with the good points that Myers makes, it is also the case that Jesus had four younger brothers and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3). So these siblings of Jesus' were growing up in Mary and Josephs' godly household, with a sinless elder brother. But we only read of two of them believing (Yehudah and Ya'acov) and that only at the time of the resurrection.



Probably would merit another thread.


----------



## Herald

JP Wallace said:


> BTW I think my concept of that is that the HS does not actually "seal" until baptism is understood by true faith



JP, food for thought:

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after *listening *to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also _*believed*_, you were *sealed *in Him *with the Holy Spirit* of promise, (emphasis mine)

Peace, brother.


----------

