# For folks who adhere to Paedobaptism, quick question?



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

First and foremost,this is neither for nor against infant baptism and I would prefer it to remain that way.I am not looking for a debate, please!. I just simply want to ask if my understanding is right and one other question. Infant baptism in the Presbyterian Church is similar to the covenant of circumcision correct?I realize it's nothing like the Catholics who believe it actually saves. It's basically carrying that kind of circumcision/covenant with God for children forward into New Testament times, am I correct? And one other question after these children grow up are they baptized again when they believe/make a profession of faith?


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

There is no covenant of baptism in place of a covenant of circumcision. The covenant of grace is regarded as one and the same. The sign has been changed in accord with the fact that Christ has fulfilled circumcision. However, the status of infants within the covenant has never been changed, and so the sign is administered to them. Baptism as an initiating ordinance is only to be administered once, and so they are not rebaptised upon personal profession of faith. They are, however, admitted to the Lord's supper, which is the confirming ordinance of the New Testament.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

MW said:


> There is no covenant of baptism in place of a covenant of circumcision. The covenant of grace is regarded as one and the same. The sign has been changed in accord with the fact that Christ has fulfilled circumcision. However, the status of infants within the covenant has never been changed, and so the sign is administered to them. Baptism as an initiating ordinance is only to be administered once, and so they are not rebaptised upon personal profession of faith. They are, however, admitted to the Lord's supper, which is the confirming ordinance of the New Testament.



Thanks Matthew!


----------



## Edward (May 18, 2015)

Start here. Paragraphs 5 and 6 seem to address a couple of your questions:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

Edward said:


> Start here. Paragraphs 5 and 6 seem to address a couple of your questions:
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
> 
> ...


VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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.
What exactly is this saying? I am a little confused by it.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 18, 2015)

Shaw explains:

The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the moment of administration; but though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii. 5, 8

http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/


----------



## Jack K (May 19, 2015)

Rather than the way you put it, Edward, I would prefer to state that the participation of children in the Covenant of Grace has not changed since the days of Abraham. However, the _sign_ of inclusion in the covenant has changed to one that reflects the finished, cleansing work of Christ and our union with him; the sign we use is now baptism. Baptism and how we administer it naturally shares some similarities with circumcision (the old sign), but there are also important differences. For one, the recipients are expanded (not restricted, as credobaptists would practice) to include females.

Note that the sign of union with Christ and salvation through his work has always been baptism, even for those (including children) who lived in Old Testament times. See 1 Cor. 10:1-4.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Rather than the way you put it, Edward, I would prefer to state that the participation of children in the Covenant of Grace has not changed since the days of Abraham. However, the _sign_ of inclusion in the covenant has changed to one that reflects the finished, cleansing work of Christ and our union with him; the sign we use is now baptism. Baptism and how we administer it naturally shares some similarities with circumcision (the old sign), but there are also important differences. For one, the recipients are expanded (not restricted, as credobaptists would practice) to include females.
> 
> Note that the sign of union with Christ and salvation through his work has always been baptism, even for those (including children) who lived in Old Testament times. See 1 Cor. 10:1-4.



Okay makes more sense. Sorry for how I worded it, I see sign is the correct term. Just to inquire a little more because I am considering changing my church. I am thinking of going to a Presbyterian Church because my current Church(which isn't too bad) is Non-Denominational and very modern evangelical/dispensational and pretty much Arminian without plainly stating it. And with my recent conversion or illumination rather of the truth of reformed theology I think it would be good to go to a Church which stands on these beliefs, plus my mom has converted with me and would like to go to a reformed church as well. But back to my question, I was baptized in a credobaptists fashion about a year ago. Maybe this is a silly question but I wouldn't need to be rebaptized would I? I mean I would imagine not by what I see in the confession. And say someone does not get baptized as an infant but converts later in life, when they are saved would Presbyterian's then baptize them? Just looking for some clarification guys.THanks


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 19, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> I was baptized in a credobaptists fashion about a year ago. Maybe this is a silly question but I wouldn't need to be rebaptized would I?


 You would not be rebaptized.



God'sElectSaint said:


> And say someone does not get baptized as an infant but converts later in life, when they are saved would Presbyterian's then baptize them?


 Yes they would be baptized.

Edit: I should add. No rebaptism as along as the Confessional Standards in the baptism were followed. For example, if a person were baptized with the words "May Zorro the god bless you", then a baptism would be necessary for the first 'baptism' would be deemed a non-baptism in the first place.


----------



## Jack K (May 19, 2015)

Paedo-baptists practice adult baptism too, and for the most part accept baptisms done in other churches. It's highly unlikely you would be asked to be rebaptized. As for the infant who converts later in life, paedo-baptists don't view this as an abnormality but rather as an outcome we anticipated and hoped for.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 19, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Maybe this is a silly question



I want to add. These questions you ask are really great questions. These are the big questions that any serious student of theology will ask. I have been encouraged by your desire to know God and His ways. I am fairly new to church life in general, and so the questions you ask or what others put forth as posts and threads on PB provide a wonderful way for me to reflect on God and His ways.

God Bless!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this is a silly question
> ...



Thanks Nicole! I am new to a lot of this too. But I am so in love with Christ and His word. That's why I am going to seminary because whether or not I become a Pastor I want to be well versed in the Scripture. But I do mostly want to pursue a career that is Christian based. I am very grateful for the PB. It has been a great help to me as God has led me to the truth about reformed theology. Jack, Jimmy, Matthew, Dennis and many others have been extremely patient and helpful to me and I thank you all! I am just so grateful to God for saving me, if anyone was guilty and deserved eternal punishment it was me! 1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> if a person were baptized with the words "May Zorro the god bless you", then a baptism would be necessary for the first 'baptism' would be deemed a non-baptism in the first place.


My baptism was in accordance with Mat 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
So there should be no problem. Admittedly at first I was a little disappointed that the Presbyterian Church practiced infant baptism. But now that I understand that it is nothing like that of Catholics it makes much more sense and actually I can see why biblically they would do it. So thanks again!


----------



## kodos (May 19, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Nicholas Perella said:
> 
> 
> > if a person were baptized with the words "May Zorro the god bless you", then a baptism would be necessary for the first 'baptism' would be deemed a non-baptism in the first place.
> ...



Haha, I can sympathize with your sentiment!

When I first entered the doors of a PCA church, I remember liking the church, the theology, etc. and thought, "if only they didn't baptize their babies!" Now, I wouldn't have it any other way 

Praying the Lord will bless you as you grow deeper and deeper in your understanding of Confessionally Reformed Churches!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

kodos said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Nicholas Perella said:
> ...



Thanks! I just called a local Presbyterian Church that looks good in my area and left a message. Hanover Valley Presbyterian I live in York, PA and it seems like Reformed Churches outside of the city are slim pickings but this looks pretty solid.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2015)

My sister and her husband were members of a PCA in central York, when they lived there prior to heading to the mission field (out of country). There's quite a variety of philosophies of ministry and doctrine-of-church (ecclesiology) and combinations thereof in the PCA, including that part covering the region where you live.

May you find a church home in which to settle, that feeds you well, where you learn and grow (2Pet.3:18) and where you can practice serving others in Christ, Lk.22:27, "...I am among you as he that serveth." Maturity is the vital thing, if (assuming) you will one day be suitable to Christian service-vocation. It is not something that is achieved overnight. 1Tim.3:6

Baptism is a part of your *rooting* (Col.2:7) in the soil of the church. People don't always appreciate its significance; then they _switcheroo _their opinion on the topic without proper reflection, and end up _*unmoored*_ and literally drift away theologically, tossed by every wind and wave (Jas.1:6).


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My sister and her husband were members of a PCA in central York, when they lived there prior to heading to the mission field (out of country). There's quite a variety of philosophies of ministry and doctrine-of-church (ecclesiology) and combinations thereof in the PCA, including that part covering the region where you live.
> 
> May you find a church home in which to settle, that feeds you well, where you learn and grow (2Pet.3:18) and where you can practice serving others in Christ, Lk.22:27, "...I am among you as he that serveth." Maturity is the vital thing, if (assuming) you will one day be suitable to Christian service-vocation. It is not something that is achieved overnight. 1Tim.3:6
> 
> Baptism is a part of your *rooting* (Col.2:7) in the soil of the church. People don't always appreciate its significance; then they _switcheroo _their opinion on the topic without proper reflection, and end up _*unmoored*_ and literally drift away theologically, tossed by every wind and wave (Jas.1:6).



Thanks Hanover is a lot closer to me then central York not that that is my only factor in deciding my Church. I live with my parents in a little town right outside of York called Spring Grove. And yes Rev. Buchanan that is my hope to find a Church to mature and serve in. I pray that through my schooling and service and learning in the local Church that I will be prepared for Christian service-vocation. It is something I have considered deeply and prayed quite a bit about and I feel God is directing me towards Ministry. He has given me a hunger for His word and the service of His people. But I am going to take my time to mature and stabilize myself as you pointed out Tim 3:6 is important to take into consideration.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Baptism is a part of your rooting (Col.2:7) in the soil of the church.


That was something I was considering. That's why I brought up the re baptized idea. Wasn't sure if it would have been important to be baptized into the Presbyterian Church but of course I have been baptized into Christ not a particular Church. Your right though baptism is important. I took it very seriously, it was important for me to obey the Lord and identify myself with Christ publicly. And I will have to do some consideration on the topic but I do understand Presbyterian padeo-baptism a lot better now. I see that it's not out of thin air but has some scriptural grounds to it which I will continue to weigh out in my studies.


----------



## Edward (May 19, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Hanover Valley Presbyterian



Looks like it is PCA, but they certainly don't appear to be very proud of the fact.

A few warning signs from the web site, but it might be your best option.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 19, 2015)

Edward said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Hanover Valley Presbyterian
> ...



Could you elaborate?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 20, 2015)

Ed,
Just try them out.

Websites can be about image. I found their affiliation with ease. They are probably on the "hip-er" end of the broad PCA spectrum; but how far over only a visit can tell you.

And you might just like their style anyway. We're mostly traditional around the PB in both look and feel; but there has to be at least a little grace given if we wish it reciprocated.


----------



## Captain Picard (May 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ed,
> Just try them out.
> 
> Websites can be about image. I found their affiliation with ease. *They are probably on the "hip-er" end of the broad PCA spectrum; but how far over only a visit can tell you.*
> ...



I tend to be more traditional than my church by a fairly wide margin, but I have a hard time envisioning being elsewhere. Grace does need to be given. Experience has taught me an unhealthy fascination with traditionalism creates faction and Paul was pretty clear about where he stood on that. It's not always about minutia of style in a church. In fact, rarely should be.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

Thanks guys! I am going to try it out this weekend.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 20, 2015)

It was interesting listening to Stand to Reason where Greg Koukl was struggling to really come to grips with what baptism really was. He had received a call from someone in the Campbellite tradition. Greg was right to see that, where the person was arguing for "salvation by immersion", Greg could see in the text that the baptism spoken of as "saving" dealt primarily with union with Christ and the work of the Spirit. That said, as he was talking further it was clear that his theology didn't really allow him to resolve the tension between the sign of baptism and all the things that are signified by it.

I think Christians have wrestled for centuries with this issue because the same word "baptism" is used in the Scriptures to refer both to something that the Church does ministerially as well as something that only God can do. Which is it? Why doesn't God just call the act "baptism" and the work of the Spirit something else? Why doesn't He just eliminate the confusion and not speak of being "baptized into Christ" or being "buried with Christ" in baptism?

Some have answered that question by making the working of the work the thing that conveys the spiritual reality. This is the case in the Roman Catholic Church.

Some make the act of baptism a bare sign. It is the act of the individual. Often, in the past, I would hear people acknowledge that men could be saved without baptism and so why do it? The answer was consistently: "It's our act of obedience." That always rung hollow to me. There didn't seem to be any necessary connection to the grace of the Gospel that baptism could be simply summed up as something that God says: "OK, I want you to get baptized now because I said so."

I think there were always hints in theological discussions throughout history but I really think a great contribution to really connecting sign and reality is the Reformed conception. It's more than just a sign but the action itself does not necessarily convey the reality simply because the Church performs it. Yet, the sign has to be connected to reality in such a way that we can speak in Apostolic terms and say "baptism saves".

I think the Reformed tradition follows in the traditional theological vantage point of the distance between Creator and creature. I say it's traditional because it was not a Reformation invention but it is something that the Reformed consistently work out. The Westminster Confession talks about the distance between the Creator and the creature being so great that man would have no fruition in God unless God condescends. How does He condescend? By way of Covenant.

God is eternal. We are finite. We cannot lay hold of eternity and say: "Ah yes, that is what God is like." It is necessary for God to covenant, to descend into history, so that we can have some sort of contact. We need some way to understand. God would be veiled in majesty and mystery but He has condescended by Covenant and speaks and acts with us in creaturely terms. He lisps to us things we can apprehend about Him. We don't plumb the depths of Who He is but apprehend what we can understand as creatures.

So it is with His Word and so it is with His sacraments. It is quite sad that so many Protestants don't see the poverty in failing to apprehend why Christ instituted sacraments. Why all this "play acting" in the OT? Why kill a lamb? Why eat unleavened bread? Why live in a tent? Why re-enact something that happened in the past?

Because we're creatures and in our forebears re-enacting the past in these "sacraments" they were continually in physical contact with the past. With eyes of faith, they could see not that God *was* their God but that He still *is* - right now. They could see He was for them in these acts as His promise was annexed to an act.

So it was with circumcision. It was not that God needed Abraham's circumcision. Abraham and his posterity were given it as a gift. With eyes of faith they could look at their flesh and be reminded of God's interest in them in a physical act. They had been set apart by God and all that was promised to Abraham was not only true of the Jews in general but was *mine*, specifically, as I looked down at a part of my anatomy and said: "It's true of me too. God has promised me in *my* flesh that I am an heir to the promise as I trust in Him."

And so it is with baptism. It is God's speech to us. He doesn't give it to us so that He can see whether we'll obey. He gives it to us to confirm that we belong to Him as we look with eyes of faith. The faith may wax and wane but the promise of the act of baptism remains. The promise and act are as irreversible as "de-circumcision". It need not be repeated because the promise of God has not changed. As surely as the water washed away the filth of our flesh so surely have our sins been washed as we trusted in Christ. Some may crassly say: "Well, I already know that because He told me." The Scriptures say: "No sinner, you're weaker than that and God has given you a *tangible* sign to remind you."

It's not only true of everyone who believes that they are saved but my baptism is a verbal and physical and person act that was for Rich. Rich was physically baptized in real human history. God's promise was made specifically to me and the Word and the water confirmed God's promise of salvation by faith to me, Rich. God condescended by covenant and gave me a sign that confirms that I am His and the Spirit so works with the sign so as to convey that reality to me. The Spirit works with the physical act so that the two are distinct but that I can see in my physical baptism a spiritual sealing in Christ.

This is what it means to be Reformed and paedobaptist. It is to see God as Creator and unapproachable except by way of Covenant and so He graciously condescends to give not only verbal but physical expression to that Covenant in promissory acts that He will fulfill in His sovereign timing. It's not up to me to figure out the "delta" between administration and the receipt of the reality. It's only up to me to believe the Promise not only today but tomorrow.


----------



## Edward (May 20, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Could you elaborate?



The Rev. Buchanan's comment 


> They are probably on the "hip-er" end of the broad PCA spectrum



is probably better than how I could articulate. It could just be that I'm not in their target demographic, while you probably are.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 20, 2015)

Edward said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Could you elaborate?
> ...



Yes I am going to check it out but in all honesty even though I am young I like Traditional. I don't like the idea of the Church conforming to much to the world but I'll give this Church a fair shot and try to serve and learn.


----------

