# Divergent from "Explaining Infant Baptism From In-Laws"



## Larry Hughes (Apr 27, 2006)

*Divergent from \"Explaining Infant Baptism From In-Laws\"*



> Larry,
> But isn't it consistant w/ historic reformed thinking that we baptise because of what God has already accomplished in our children? Does it not point to that accomplishment?
> 
> Nigel lee writes:
> ...



Scott,

My main point was it is best to show what a thing is so that the people of Christ may see the wonderful Gospel in it and avoid changing the ceremony to the "œnots" for the sake of apologizing to errors. To put it another way what if in the Lord´s day service the emphasis over time of the message became "œHow Mormonism is not Christianity."

It is possible we are talking past one another on this issue. I´ll ask a trick question; which is more certain God having already done a thing or God promising to do a thing?

Baptism does not rest (find its reality, truth, being and validity) upon the existence of faith or the existence of regeneration and that is precisely the point of difference. That´s the point of it being FOR faith and not BECAUSE of faith (or regeneration). If it is because of faith then it has immediately lost its Gospel witness and instantly it becomes a legal duty or obedience that if not explicitly is at least implicitly quasi-meritorious (I got the timing right and rebaptism issue). It is not surprising that one camp uses the language of "˜sacrament´ while another "˜ordinance´, for one conveys Gospel the other at length Law. 

Baptism´s reality is not one bit based upon the receptacle of faith which is formed from regeneration and by the Gospel. You are making the baptist´s argument ironically using infants, one is just changing the subjects at hand. That is to argue in the wrong paradigm and all the battle boils down to the idea of "œpresumed" faith/regeneration. The great error of both Rome and the Anabaptist really boiled down to the same principle from opposite ends. Namely a one to one relationship between baptism and faith and/or regeneration. Both end up destroying baptism. Rome by confusing the thing signified with the sign itself making the sign sufficient in and of itself and the Anabaptist/Baptist by divorcing the sign completely from the thing signified and thus a naked and empty symbol or badge. This is why, quite ironically, other false means of grace tend to at length arise in the Roman church and many credo type churches. Rome has its list of indulgences and "œmeans" and the credo churches do as well, though less formal. The later variously depending upon the doctrinal underpinning make things like aisle walking, alter calls, rededications, rebaptisms, wrestling with God in prayer over salvation, evangelism and mission trips and etc"¦ means of grace which were never ever in the least appointed so. But that´s a divergence from the issue at hand. Back on track.

It matters very little whether one is speaking in terms of subjects of infants having faith or adults having faith or apples having faith; or one is removing one step backward to regeneration which births faith along the same lines "“ the point is, from the baptistic argument faith or "œregeneration", which is essentially saying the exact same thing concerning "œwhen to baptize" must pre-exist the giving of baptism. This pre-existing condition then turns baptism, and at length the Gospel upside down, makes it legal and not Gospel at all. Never forget that all forms, ALL of them, works-righteousness say faith comes about by striving. "œStriving" can take many forms and even poison, as in the yeast of the Pharisees does, otherwise things meant to communicate or proclaim Gospel. Hence in order to "œget the legal formula" correct some men are vainly re-baptized, the work has to be just right. Gospel-righteousness on the other hand says faith comes about by hearing Christ and Him crucified proclaimed. It is entirely receptive. That´s not mere hair splitting but rather two different religions or religious ideas when it is all boiled down.

The sign of baptism finds its reality, truth, existence, value, being and etc. not in the receptacle of faith but in the promise of God. Which is exactly what 1 Peter 3:21 is saying, "œBaptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." The fouled conscience is the one that is guilt ridden and cannot by its false justifications of self or by one´s own works or rules find rest toward God´s holy Law which is perfect in thought, word and deed. Even more so, the evil conscience is the conscience of fallen man in its connection with Adam without any sin acts itself. But the good conscience though knows its guilt gives a good answer toward God. Why? Because it worked and strived to show forth faith/regeneration first before it was baptized and thus having the formula correct can rest in that? No, because baptism gives what it signifies, Christ alone. That´s what it means to be baptized or clothed into Christ and thus sins imputed to Christ and righteousness imputed to the believer from Christ, the conscience is now clean. The good conscience rests in Christ and this is what baptism strengthens, it strengthens faith, hence FOR faith not against it being BECAUSE of faith!

I don´t presume them to be or not be regenerate, I presume and TRUST on and into the promise of God to be a God to me and my children both to give them the Gospel, regeneration and faith. That "œthe promise is to me and my children and all who are far off to whom the Lord our God shall call." I fully trust that my children WILL be saved, have faith, be regenerate. This may show immediately or it may be later in life, but until I rest in heaven with the Lord I will trust in HIS word of promise to me and that given in baptism as sign to me and my household. Even John Calvin warned against the vanity of seeking to know our election or regeneration nakedly or by things within us, but that Christ is the mirror, as it were, whereby we look and know, "œI am elect". The believer, the truster in Christ alone period is the elect person, that is to say the one looking into the mirror to use Calvin´s metaphor.

That´s why I´ve always said and argued that fundamentally Reformed and Baptist do not view "œbelievers baptism" the same way, infants aside. We can pretend and hedge all we want but we simply do not think nor believe the same here at all. And this is easily proven. Because the Baptist if pressed will re-baptize an adult/immersed baptized person who thinks or even to some degree proves he/she did not have faith, say, when they where baptized clearly as adults a first time. The answer may be hedged a bit so as to not reveal the reality and make a show of solidarity on the issue with the Reformed by saying we don´t do it flippantly or often and strive to discern, but at length they must admit that they would if the evidence forces them to conclude that an adult immersed as an adult did not possess faith FIRST. Otherwise their whole position is over thrown and then they would not be baptizing infants arbitrarily and with prejudice. But the they must face the clear implications of basing it upon faith and/or regeneration. Likewise a reformed, or Lutheran for that matter, would not re-baptize under the same circumstances. Why? Now here we are not analyzing infant baptism but baptism itself, what it fundamentally is and is not. And to do this we must stop talking past one another and honestly speak. To do so would be like ignoring the arminian who says we are not all that different from the sovereign grace position, we just say that the man must believe and that faith is what saves him (merits him salvation). That sounds like such a small consolation at first blow but any good Calvinist or Lutheran knows that that overthrows sovereign grace altogether. It may seem like a tiny bit but it is the bit that saves and THAT makes it everything and Christ nothing. Similarly is this issue on "˜why baptism is repeated´ by one group and not another. We need to establish a firm language on what each means by each item, otherwise we are just trying to blur the lines so as to appear at unity on this issue, just as the arminian would have the Calvinist do"¦just fudge the lines a bit. But truth is truth and not a fudged smear. 

Some logic and language 101. When formulating words to stand for a "˜thing´ or "˜thought idea´ we define it by its basic fundamental common elements. That is to say reduced a thing or thought idea to the rudiments of minimum thought elements or real elements that are necessary for a thing or idea to remain that very thing or idea, and what less than or greater than elements changes it entirely though it can retain some of the other elements that are similar. Some call this "œthought comprehensions" or a similar term. A single thought idea or thing will have a strict rudimentary set of comprehensions whereby it is that thing or idea. Reduce or add to the comprehensions and one may have a similar thing or thought idea in many ways but is altogether different in sum total. Example: The comprehensions for an animal are: living, bodily, sentient. Take away say "œsentient" and we have a similar "˜thing´ but in sum total is a plant. Add to it "œrational" and we have a similar thing but in sum total a different thing called man. The same goes for "œcause" and "œeffect". Is the ground wet because it rained or did it rain because the ground is wet. This one is obvious but for the point it serves well. Both statements or thought ideas contain exactly the same information but how that information is understood defines two entirely and contrary paradigms. It is one thing to say and base the cause of the ground being wet (its reality, truth, being and validity) due to the rain, quite another to say and base the cause of the rain (its reality, truth, being and validity) due to the ground being wet.

The same is with baptism. If baptism (we will call for short hand C-baptism) must necessarily find its reality, truth, being and validity upon the existence or pre-existence of "œfaith" (even truly God given faith which is not the Gospel), which is the receiving vessel of the Gospel; then that "˜idea´ of baptism is entirely different than a baptism (we will call for short hand P-baptism) that finds its reality, truth, being and validity based upon the Word of God or promise of God or Gospel or Good News of God to justify sinners by Christ´s cross and resurrection alone. C-baptism manifestly and openly requires faith to pre-exist and is thus grounded, otherwise to use Baptistic language, "œit is not a real baptism". No baptist denies this. To do so over-throws their whole paradigm and again to not baptize infants by denying this for the sake of winning an argument (the basis of faith) is to not baptize children with prejudice. Thus, it must be affirmed as the definition or else one´s doctrine is utterly arbitrary and changes with the wind in order to not loose an argument.

Though the definitions contain similar elements, like our rain example, their order and understanding and emphasis define two sum totally different ideas. It is true that P-baptism includes faith and regeneration in parts of its definition but that faith is not its founding basis. It is true that C-baptism places the idea of Gospel in its definition but that is not its found basis. The later might be rejected by Baptist as it can sound harsh but to reject it is to reject the very foundation C-baptism claims is its basis and we are back to arbitrarily not baptizing infants. If one says baptism is based on the Gospel (recall the cause/effect concept) then one has no reason for rejecting a baptism by re-baptism if the subject, even an adult, did not first possess faith when their first baptism occurred. To require re-baptism at any point because of the lack of the existence of faith or regeneration is to necessarily base baptism primarily and solely into faith and regeneration, and not the Gospel or for that matter Christ and Him crucified. That is why in baptistic circles re-baptism occurs and it is said that a baptism before faith is "œno baptism at all". "œNo baptism at all or not baptism" is another way of saying baptism didn´t exist or transpire. And when it is argued that "œwe don´t "˜re-baptize´", what is being said is true from that paradigm. For if baptism took place sans faith/rebirth, then it was not baptism according to the fundamental of that paradigm, thus "œre-baptism" is incorrect but and rather it is called by Baptist the first and only baptism. Under the paradigm it is accurate, but the paradigm cannot be later denied when its implications come out, unless one rejects it altogether. And this reinforces the concrete and inescapable fact that C-baptism find its reality, truth, being and validity upon those very things; namely faith (the receptacle of the Gospel and/or regeneration which comes by the Gospel but is itself NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Now P-baptism does not root itself in faith or regeneration, rather finds its reality, truth, being and validity in the Gospel of Jesus Christ directly immediately itself, the promise of God (thus Peter says in Acts 2, "œFor the promise"¦etc"¦). It bears direct witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and not to faith the receptacle. Yes, it does have the elements of faith and regeneration pictured in it, but it´s a matter of the order and basis not whether or not they are there or not. I can build a car with all the elements and parts of a car, but if I order them wrong all I have is a dysfunctional hunk of metal containing the same exact elements of a functioning car. I can say, "œSee I have a car too, it has a steering wheel, engine and etc"¦see we both have cars". But my folly is shown when it doesn´t run at all but sits in a heap.

This is why Baptist and Reformed do not at length even understand "œbeliever´s baptism" of adults, mode aside, the same. In short "œbelievers baptism" doesn´t come into being for the Baptist unless faith precedes it but yet it does come into being for the reformed regardless of the recipients possession of actual faith or regeneration.

It could come down to this simple analogy: If Bill Gates wrote you a check for 1 million dollars, would it be good because you believe him/it and not be good if you did not believe him/it. Or is the check good in spite of your trust or lack thereof? You could not believe one year then in ten years believe and cash it, the check gives what it signifies irrespective of your faith. True, it will not be good FOR YOU if you distrust and foolishly reject it, but it is foolish precisely because you would fail to believe the realness and truth of it not because you lacked faith. It is the same way with baptism and circumcision of the OT; what if some did not believe, it is not as if the Word of God failed!

Now what I´ve said here I don´t mean to be polemic. I´ve endeavored to just state the facts as baldly as I can. And the definitions I´ve given would not be denied by either side without hypocrisy. I cannot help what they lead to. It is my attempt, as a poor instrument that I am with all the sins and flaws of a great sinner to open up the purity of the Gospel for all involved, not obscure it.

In Christ´s Love,

Larry H.

[Edited on 4-27-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------

