# Baptism - Any Benefits to the unregenerate?



## Robert Truelove (May 18, 2007)

I know this has probabley been done here but I'd like to ask the question concisely and see how you all respond to it.

1. Does the sacrament of Baptism profit the unregenerate while they are unregenerate? (I am not looking for the answer 'yes', it profits them when they later believe...I am asking if, in time, before faith, the baptism of the unregenerate grants any benefits).

2. Would your answer change if the subject were an infant instead of an adult?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

1) I would say "no". The best I wold offer would be to say that if that person were _elect_ it would be equivalent to scratching a check to "Bob" and leaving it on the counter for him to pick up. Until he picks it up and cashes it, its just a piece of paper, a promise to pay. It doesn't "profit" at all. Neither does baptism, not until it is appropriated by faith. I would reference WCF 28.6 on this very issue.

2) No.


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

From a baptist persepctive, I'd say it had no benefit, but in a very real sense, had many drawbacks: 

-can generate false assurance
-can hamper the desire of the church to witness to the person falsely baptised. 
-brings goats into the sheepfold, harming the church as a whole


----------



## smhbbag (May 18, 2007)

It has benefits associated with it - namely external relation to the covenant people and exposure to the Word of God through that. Those don't specifically come from an unregenerate's baptism, but rather what I assume comes along with it (church membership). Baptism itself, though, confers no extra benefit to that person that is not received without it, if he is in association with the covenant people.

That benefit, however, will be a curse if that person is never brought to faith, as he has only condemned himself further on judgment day.

So, no, there are no real benefits - and rightly so, as any baptism of an unregenerate is caused by sin, either by a false profession (sin of the baptized) or a wrong application of it to an infant (sin of the baptizer). Sin never gives real benefits.

For an infant, my only change would be that extra judgment is not necessarily added onto him if he dies unregenerate because of his baptism. That same extra judgment, though, would likely still apply as he has been raised in the community of faith.


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2007)

*Romans 3:1-3*



> 1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?



There was an advantage to circumcision (without reference to regeneration). If we, as Reformed people, believe there is an essential unity between the covenants then there must also be a benefit for the unregenerate in their baptism as well. 

Or have I stretched the redemptive-historical meaning of this text?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

[edit--My initial post was a mistake. Sorry]
Chris,
Your observations are fairly posed to either a baptist or a prebyterian position.

My only comment would be that in the last case, I would rather have a falsely baptized person sitting in my church who did not view his baptism as a sign of his conversion (as do the baptists) or his regeneration (as do the papists), but rather as God's promise to save those, and *only* those, who come to him by faith. This person would be sitting, hearing the gospel on a weekly basis, whereby he would then have the opportunity to be worked uppon by the Spirit and the Word to his ultimate salvation.

Jeremy,
I realize your comment is predicated on your view of paedobaptism as sin. Even so, I think you need to nuance your answer somewhat. When we take the providence of God into consideration, we are forced to admit that God uses even our sins to produce ultimate benefit to his elect, most obvioiusly in the the fruits of repentance. This is no license to sin, but from the veiw of God's immutable decree, while sin of itself produces no benefits (only death), the results of sins are a more perfect work of grace.

Daniel,
I would want to draw distinctions between advantages and objective value, as belonging to the covenant people, and benefits granted explicitly by the sign. Circumcision itself granted no benefits. Neither does baptism itself. It is the things that they point to that connect the persons to real benefit, when mixed with faith. It states explicitly: it *did not profit them..."* Hebrews 4:2 "the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard." (ASV)


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I would want to draw distinctions between advantages and objective value, as belonging to the covenant people, and benefits granted explicitly by the sign. Circumcision itself granted no benefits. Neither does baptism itself. It is the things that they point to that connect the persons to real benefit, when mixed with faith. It states explicitly: it *did not profit them..."* Hebrews 4:2 "the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard." (ASV)



Bruce:

I think I could agree with what you are saying here if we would distinguish between salvific and non-salvific benefits of the sacrament. Advantages and benefits are, it seems to me, semantically the same, but as you point out there is a greater benefit for those who receive the sign by faith and those who do not.

Please note that the context is speaking explicitly of the unfaithful Jew, not the one who receives circumcision of faith. 

But I don't think there is really any substantial difference in our position(s).


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

> My only comment would be that in the last case, I would rather have a falsely baptized person sitting in my church who did not view his baptism as a sign of his conversion (as do the baptists) or his regeneration (as do the papists), but rather as God's promise to save those, and only those, who come to him by faith. This person would be sitting, hearing the gospel on a weekly basis, whereby he would then have the opportunity to be worked uppon by the Spirit and the Word to his ultimate salvation.



Your comment presupposes that the unconverted guy is in a church with good soteriology. 

Bad as I hate to say it, lots of southern baptists sit unregenerate in a church that preaches with an eye towards keeping them, not convicting them. 

(But within your presupposition, I see your point...)


----------



## matt01 (May 18, 2007)

No.


----------



## Kevin (May 18, 2007)

I don't have the citation at hand but the LC & SC both use the wording "baptism...seals the benifits..." (or wording close to it).

Can someone (who is smarter than me) post the citation here? I think that would be helpful.


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2007)

*Larger Catechism *



> Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
> A167: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby...



*Shorter Catechism*



> Q94: What is baptism?
> A94: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

Chris said:


> Your comment presupposes that the unconverted guy is in a church with good soteriology.
> 
> Bad as I hate to say it, lots of southern baptists sit unregenerate in a church that preaches with an eye towards keeping them, not convicting them.
> 
> (But within your presupposition, I see your point...)



Well, Chris,
I also admit that I _initially_ read your first post as a myopic put down of presbyterians--given that each and every negative could be levelled against baptist churches as well. But when I re-read what you wrote, I could see that your post might already be taking that state of affairs into account. Hence the need to delete/edit it.

Once they're baptized (infant or grown up) I think we are agreeing that the hearers all have a continuing need to hear the gospel--either a converting need or a sanctifying need.


----------



## Kevin (May 18, 2007)

Thanks Pastor Kok. It was LC 167 that I was trying to recall. 

I don't know if I can fully grasp all that is meant in those few lines, but I do know that I feel a bit (OK a lot) uncomfortable when I hear people refer to the benefits of baptism in a way that makes it a "mere sign".

I have heard it said that the "benefits" of baptism to a covenant child is that "they get to come to church and hear the gospel preached."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Bruce:
> 
> I think I could agree with what you are saying here if we would distinguish between salvific and non-salvific benefits of the sacrament. Advantages and benefits are, it seems to me, semantically the same, but as you point out there is a greater benefit for those who receive the sign by faith and those who do not.
> 
> ...


Dainiel,
I'm glad we have wide and deep agreement, basically. A couple more thoughts:

1) The OP specifically asked what *profit* (or *benefit*) does the unregenerate receive by means of the sacrament. And specifically excluded any *later* benefits, once faith was formed. I think the difference between "advantages" and "profit/benefit" is much more than semantics, theologically. Apropro that, re-examine the "check" analogy I used. Advantage it truly makes, however there's only one way to _profit_ from it. I would liken the "profit" of circumcision or baptism ALONE as a person going to a store and taking products because they have a check sitting on the counter at home, or they show the proprietor they are "good for it" because by showing them the uncashed check. If that guy doesn't get his money, he's coming to take that "profit" back.

I think, rather than speaking generically of priviledges borne by those in outward covenant, in order to make the case one needs to specify some actual, named profit or benefit that the sign gives to an individual apart from faith. It needs to be something that he can't have _*without*_ the sign being given, or else the sign can't be identified as the thing bringing that profit.

But I will grant that the Bible identifies as "profit" _in one sense_ that a person be identified with the church. However, for a non-elect person, the profit is chimmeral, illusory, for it doesn't belong to the individual, but to the church. Not actually belonging to the reality, he is either "spending capital" that isn't his or despising it (losing both ways!). But if you had picked a "random" Israelite, yesterday or today (church), you could say that he belongs to a "wealthy family."

2) The Hebrews 4:2 context is also talking about unfaithful (and circumcised) Jews. And it clearly states that they--that is the majority--did not profit from the Word (albeit, the preached, not the visible, Word is considered there). If you go to the context you mention, Rom. 2:25 uses the same verb "ophelew" (value, in the NAS) as Heb. 4:2, and that use has to have bearing on the same term only 5 verses later. The noun then comes in Rom. 3:1, but again, the first noun "perissos" (advantage) has to nuance the sense of "opheleia". Take 2:25 together with 3:1-2 and the single "benefit" is clearly nothing beyond the outward, corporate "identity" of Jewishness ("to *them* was entrusted").

Note also 1 Cor. 7:19: "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God." Here Paul takes the thought of Rom. 2:25 and basically reduces any "profit" to zero, to nothing. Gal. 5:2 flips the issue around, saying: "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage (ophelew) to you." In other words,, again the "profit" is illusory, temporary. Without Christ, in the end the alleged "profit" of circumcision, exchanged for the profit of Christ, gets the man nothing.


I do appreciate you stimulating me to look at the texts further. Again, I'm happy that we are basically in agreement.
Blessings,


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, Chris,
> I also admit that I _initially_ read your first post as a myopic put down of presbyterians--given that each and every negative could be levelled against baptist churches as well.



Seriously, I'm trying to stop. 



> But when I re-read what you wrote, I could see that your post might already be taking that state of affairs into account. Hence the need to delete/edit it.



I didn't read it pre-edit - kinda glad, to be honest. I tend to see things in the worst possible light sometimes. 



> Once they're baptized (infant or grown up) I think we are agreeing that the hearers all have a continuing need to hear the gospel--either a converting need or a sanctifying need.



I agree. 

One day when I'm up to it, I may ask a question that I think _has_ to flow from this discussion: 


What do you do with those in your church who have a pattern of life that indicates (albeit a baptised member of the local body) they're still unregenerate?


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2007)

Bruce:

I think you would agree that the sacraments sign and seal God's covenant promises to each individual who receives them outwardly. Though the promise must be received by faith to be enacted/fulfilled if you will, it does not annul the faithfulness of God. (as per Romans 3:3) 

For this was essentially my point (though perhaps I could have elaborated). Yes I do believe that all of the passages which you cited should be considered in the totality of our discussion on the sacraments and certainly help us to realize that the outward administration is not the reality or application of salvation itself. I think that is the whole point of Hebrews 4:1ff. I don't think, however, he is denying that there was no benefit, otherwise how could he say what he says in Hebrews 6:4-6? And yet the distinction between salvific and non-salvific benefits remains: Hebrews 6:9

However, as I have implied, Paul wishes to change his line of thinking in Romans 3 to note that God continues to be faithful. His earlier point was about the unfaithfulness of man; now he changes focus to speak objectively about God. For circumcision is His; baptism is His; the covenant is His. So I don't think we should use those texts you cited to undermine the basic point he makes here (and in Romans 9:1-5) to say that there is no 'benefit' in the outward administration. It is not a bare reality but a sign and seal really conferred on that individual whether or not they respond in faith. The promises are theirs and to their children. Thus Circumcision is added to the Word of God to confirm what He has said; it is further a benefit for the unregenerate because it signs and seals God's promise 'I will be a God to you and your seed' For notice that Paul says 'chiefly' in vs. 2 and not 'only'.

I do however, think that your analogy remains helpful if we are looking at the covenant through the lens of whom God has saved unto eternity and those who He has not. But, as I am laboring to show, I am not looking through that lens here and I don't think Paul is either (at least in Romans 3). Perhaps, therefore, I erred by failing to see what you were in saying in the context in which you were saying it. Therefore I would continue to state that "I don't think there is really any substantial difference in our position(s)."

So, in conclusion, I would continue to say yes to number 1 and no to number 2.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Thanks Pastor Kok. It was LC 167 that I was trying to recall.
> 
> I don't know if I can fully grasp all that is meant in those few lines, but I do know that I feel a bit (OK a lot) uncomfortable when I hear people refer to the benefits of baptism in a way that makes it a "mere sign".
> 
> I have heard it said that the "benefits" of baptism to a covenant child is that "they get to come to church and hear the gospel preached."


In a confessional sense, this is not quite accurate. I don't mean to pick nits but baptism signifies and seals benefits only to the elect even though they are promised to all who are baptized.

Understanding the more general sense in which you're using it, I think there's even more advantage to the child than merely hearing the Gospel in Church. I couldn't even write down the generic advantages that a child of believers might have but beyond advantages of the Church there are tons of temporal benefits. I have to be careful not to be prideful but my brothers and sister always note how happy our children are.

But, when I think about children in a congregation, I never group them according to regenerate and unregenerate although I understand the need for the thought experiment from a doctrinal standpoint. When we start talking about children, we've moved from the generic question about the unregenerate to examples of kids in our mind because it's almost impossible not to think of actual children when we're talking about them as a category.

Children of believers have a ton of advantages, then, in that they not only hear the preaching of the Word but also have parents who (hopefully) are training them from the first words they speak to call upon the name of the Lord. Let God be God with regard to His choice.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

Daniel,
Perhaps to bring us even closer into alignment (if possible?):

What do you make of the fact that Rom. in 3:1 Paul uses the noun form, rather than the verb? Elsewhere he indicates that real profitting requires something (whether law-keeping, faith, abandoning ritual, etc.). The use of the noun form in 3:1 bespeaks an objective quality, a value to the nationality, to the sign, irrespective of the individual's appreciation.

As I read it, what Paul seems to be saying is that there is genuine value to being an OT Jew, "much in every way," even when it wasn't made proper use of. There is true value there, to and profit made from it. But how is it to be profitted, apart from appreciation? Apart from the subjective imputation of value? Like the check: the check is real; "pay to the order of" says name-of, that's real; funds are available, real; etc. This, I think, lines up with what you alluded to above, the fact that God's faithfulness is real.

So, perhaps I'm focusing on the subjective profit/value to the person involved, and you simply wanting enough acknowlegement of the objective value aspect.

At this point, while I surely believe that the Holy Ghost "really exhibits," his grace to his elect--the ones unto whom "that grace belongeth"--in the "right use of this ordinance," I hesitate to acknowledge that the unregenerate elect actually profit from the grace as "conferred" until "his appointed time" (WCF 28.6). And I truly shy away from affirming that the reprobate (unto whom that grace does NOT belong) EVER profit, except maybe we can say in the "exhibition".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

Chris said:


> What do you do with those in your church who have a pattern of life that indicates (albeit a baptised member of the local body) they're still unregenerate?



It's funny you should ask this question because I was in a Bible Study on Wednesday evening and the Pastor asked: "Do we have unregenerate people in our congregation?" {Remember I attend an SBC and they're not all Reformed}

About 2-3 people said: "Oh yes there are unregenerate people here...."

Well, I'm about as Reformed as they come but I couldn't just let this slide.

You simply cannot be that emphatic about things like regeneration even when you have suspicions.

I constantly have to remind Reformed people about the Confessions insistence that doctrines concerning election be used with the greatest of care because they are used very uncarefully.

What you do with the unregenerate Church members who are not in scandalous sin or denial of the faith is the same thing you do with every Church member: preach the Gospel!

The way I view the members of my Church is as Brothers and Sisters in Christ because they are in the Church, faithful to attend, faithful to continue to pray, and faithful to worship. If I gave them a theological exam, I'm fairly convinced that nearly all of them would fail in their understanding of the grounds of their salvation. That's why I'm there.

I don't know that they're unregenerate so I treat them like underfed sheep. I have compassion to the point of tears for them.

I've even been proven wrong in some of my suspicions about how certain people would receive some teachings. If you haven't listened to my teaching on Romans 5 and Romans 6 in my Men's Bible Study and have the time to do so then listen to it here: http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

To a man, every one of the men that has been attending the Bible Study on Romans is embracing the glorious Truth of the Gospel. It is, without question, the most fulfilling thing I've ever done in my entire life.

Part of the reason why so little fruit is seen in many SBC (or other like) congregations these days is that the Gospel is not preached to the members of the Church. Character studies, therapeutic stories, or "do this and live" is preached. EVERYBODY needs the Gospel - for their conversion and for their sanctification.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 18, 2007)

Chris said:


> One day when I'm up to it, I may ask a question that I think _has_ to flow from this discussion:
> 
> What do you do with those in your church who have a pattern of life that indicates (albeit a baptised member of the local body) they're still unregenerate?


I won't wait until you're "up to it." 
Answer: You exercise church discipline, to the point of expulsion (if necessary) from the rolls of the church.


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

> The way I view the members of my Church is as Brothers and Sisters in Christ because they are in the Church, faithful to attend, faithful to continue to pray, and faithful to worship. If I gave them a theological exam, I'm fairly convinced that nearly all of them would fail in their understanding of the grounds of their salvation. That's why I'm there.



I _certainly _appreciate the reply - not to mention the edification of the church you're working with now - but I fear we're talking past each other. (a common phenomena on the internet..) 

I'm not referring to the average faithful church member who has a poor grasp of doctrine. 

I'm referring to those 10 million southern baptists (I use my own denomination as an example, because it's what I'm familiar with) that nobody has seen at a church in years, except for weddings, funerals, easter, christmas, and mother's day. I heartily agree that we must assume faithful but unlearned church members to be regenerate.

(let me reiterate: I appreciate what you're doing for the church where you're at. We've discussed this before; you and I are of one mind about the state of discipleship/edification in many baptist churches overseas)


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I won't wait until you're "up to it."




Sometimes I don't think through my position before posting in this forum, so I try to be cautious in starting a thread or even a tangent to an existing thread. 





> Answer: You exercise church discipline, to the point of expulsion (if necessary) from the rolls of the church.







That's what I was hoping to hear - it's good to know I'm not crazy (or at least not alone...)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

Chris said:


> I'm referring to those 10 million southern baptists (I use my own denomination as an example, because it's what I'm familiar with) that nobody has seen at a church in years, except for weddings, funerals, easter, christmas, and mother's day. I heartily agree that we must assume faithful but unlearned church members to be regenerate.



Oh...Church discipline.

The OPC's Book of Discipline is a good example of steps to be taken:

http://www.opc.org/BCO/BD.html

Typically, what happens is that the Session will try to meet with the person(s) personally and admonish them that they need to be in Church or repent from the scandalous sin. Even if the person will not allow meetings they will send repeated letters warning them of censure. It is a very involved process allowing the member many opportunities to repent. Eventually, a trial is held and the person is given opportunity to defend themselves but, if they refuse to participate, they are censured.

The problem with most SBC congregations is the single pastor. Proper discipline, in my estimation, needs a plurality of elders. There also needs to be some commitment on the part of pastors to shepherd their flocks. This is sorely lacking in more than SBC Churches unfortunately.

I can tell you this much: if I ever agree to be ordained I would fear God's indignation if I allowed the large number of sheep that the SBC does to just wander a way with nary a word to them. It's shameful.


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Oh...Church discipline.
> 
> The OPC's Book of Discipline is a good example of steps to be taken:
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. 

Funny that you mention elders - as you know, I'm in a church with no elders, and our deacons don't function as elders. 

I've been considering the matter of elders for a long time now, and am quite convinced that a plurality of elders is much more faithful to Scripture than the single pastor model. Most SBC'ers aren't on board with the idea yet, though. However, I had never considered what you just mention - namely, that a plurality of elders can carry out discipline more effectively than a single pastor. I'm actually going to have to think through that issue; you have hit on an aspect of elder leadership that I hadn't considered before. Thanks! 


I agree that I'd be fearful if I was responsible for wandering sheep and didn't attempt to address them. It's a sobering thing to consider.


----------



## staythecourse (May 18, 2007)

*Not sure if I can add much to this*

Some of it is laziness on my part when I don't participate in discussions but here I may be a help to to those who are not elders/pastors on the board.

Our church has practiced church discipline at 4 times in the 5 years I've been there. I know of them only because they were excommunications. I forget to realize how rare excommunication is among churches and when I come to the PB I assume most mete it out when needed.

Here is what I see when there is an excommunication, heavy hearts, weeping, silence, shock and sobriety. The person's acts are so shameful we automatically don't bring their names up. One came back to repentence but moved and is hopefully in another church.

Three of the four have been cases of adultery. One was lack of harmony in the household and apparent problems with the wife submitting to her husband causing on-going problems that affected their children.

Repeated attempts were made by elders (a plurality) to correct the situations with counseling, exhortation, and rebukes. Non-reponse led to public excommunication in which all deferred in being present. It devasted the church every time.

Because our church is so special it takes a lot of work to keep enemies (aka masqueraders) out. That is a truth for Christ's church as a whole or any congregation that tries to keep its membership pure. It's true in my heart as well as the church but that's another thread.

So, elders know their members, labor with them, experience success in their lives, but sometimes have to take out the bad to save the good.

My pastor said he would rather experience pain and loss of flesh compared to disciplining a member but it has to be done sometime.


----------



## Chris (May 18, 2007)

I subscribed to your podcast. 

I remember listening to your .mp3 of Romans 2, but had forgotten that you offered to post a link to the other teachings. Thanks - I'll load them up and check them out.


----------



## bookslover (May 18, 2007)

1. No.

2. No.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2007)

This thread has bothered me for 3 days now. 

I want to take a moment to clear the air here: 

I didn't intend my original post in any way to be derogatory towards Presbyterian churches of any sort. It occurred to me (after the fact) that my laughing at the notion might have been construed as my back-handed support of derision towards your church. 

Let me publically state that such was not my intent. Forgive me if I came across the wrong way. Poking fun at Presbyterian churches was the furtherest thing from my mind when I posted my original comment. 

I have to constantly remind myself that this is the internet, and much of what we can say in verbal communication is 'lost' when posted to a dead computer screen. 

At any rate, I enjoyed the discussion in this thread.


----------

