# Clearing up misconceptions about covenant baptism



## Willem van Oranje (Apr 14, 2010)

A child being raised by pagan parents is not a covenant child. There is a promise in the Old and New Testaments of a true spiritual blessing on the children of believers. It is spiritual, not merely concerned with externals. We believe that God will regenerate and save our children. We presuppose, not presume, but presuppose they are elect. That is why they receive the sign of baptism. However, it has nothing to do with genealogy as some Baptist falsely accuse us. Through Presbyterian (or Congregational ) loins, nothing gets passed except for sinful corruption. The covenant blessing is purely spiritual, based on God's promise to be a God to us and to our children. It applies just as much for an adopted child as it does for one born naturally of Christian parents.


----------



## Herald (Apr 14, 2010)

Which Baptist is falsely accusing Presbyterians? You used the singular, so I suppose you have someone in mind?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 14, 2010)

Well, he used the plural verb ("accuse"), so I'm guessing it was a typo and he meant "Baptists."

Just as a point of interest, it isn't universally agreed among Presbyterians that baptism should be applied to adopted babies before they profess faith. I haven't studied it, though.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Apr 14, 2010)

Herald said:


> Which Baptist is falsely accusing Presbyterians? You used the singular, so I suppose you have someone in mind?


 
Probably I had Tom Nettles in mind, whom I recently read on the subject. By the way I love Tom Nettles.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 25, 2010)

We know from Scripture and experience that not all covenant children are elect. Election in one sense, apart from our own election, is really none of our business. We have to leave these secret things with God.

We know that the children of believers are chosen by providence for the privilege, responsibility and promises of being raised in the Covenant of Grace. We don't know they are elect. We know they are sadly not always elect.

If it were the case that all those born into the Covenant of Grace were elect, it would be the case that they would all be saved.

The promises regarding the children of believers are in some sense conditional, because, if not, all covenant children would come to true and living faith at some point in their lives.

But since God doesn't give promises for nothing it would be highly unwise - to put it mildly - for Christian parents to ignore these many promises in their prayers for their children, not to rest on them before the Lord and plead them, and to have their children baptised in accordance with them, and to bring up their children in accordance with Christian and covenant principles.

These are vital issues for baptists that take the biblical promises regarding children seriously as much as paedobaptists.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 25, 2010)

austinww said:


> Well, he used the plural verb ("accuse"), so I'm guessing it was a typo and he meant "Baptists."
> 
> Just as a point of interest, it isn't universally agreed among Presbyterians that baptism should be applied to adopted babies before they profess faith. I haven't studied it, though.


 
Could you point me to any literature on this? I'm quite interested since I have an adopted brother. (I'm a credo baptist and so is my family, so to be honest this doesn't matter that much to me, but I think its very interesting (and by that, I mean a little disturbing) that some paedo baptists see the covenant as related to bloodline and I'd like to know more.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 25, 2010)

Riley, your understanding of the reasons paedobaptists baptize children is flawed... it is NOT because we presuppose their election, but because they are born into a covenant family, and we are simply being faithful to what we believe Scripture calls us to - to apply the covenant sign to our children, in view of the promise of God. It has nothing to do with presupposed regeneration, election, or any other presupposed aspect of salvation.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 25, 2010)

Thanks, Todd.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 25, 2010)

One way that helped me understand this is that infant baptism is done in recognition that God has placed the child in a position of privilege.

That is, having at least one believing parent and being part of a covenant community. Through these come the ordinary means of grace God has established such as hearing the Word of God, and being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Those born outside of it do not have such privilege.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 25, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Well, he used the plural verb ("accuse"), so I'm guessing it was a typo and he meant "Baptists."
> ...


 
I haven't read about the subject much. I believe I was reading C. Matthew McMahon's site (Welcome to A Puritan's Mind!) when I saw him say that an adopted child should not be baptized before coming to faith. However, I'm not a regular visitor to the site (I was just reading about baptism), so I don't remember where I read it exactly.

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

I found it. It was Wilhelmus a'Brakel who said it:



> First, children to be baptized must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant;



The Subjects of Baptism


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 25, 2010)

That's odd. I'd have to strongly object to à Brakel here. Even the foreign, purchased servant in Abraham's home was to be circumcised (Gen 17:12). I don't think it so much matters to whom he was born as what community he belongs to.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2010)

A Brackel's approach seems rather narrow, and I don't think it would be followed by today's Presbyterians.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 28, 2010)

You would be correct Richard. Baptism is based on the profession of at least one parent. If a child is adopted and the parent makes a credible profession, the child would be baptized based on the promise and command of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 28, 2010)

wsw201 said:


> You would be correct Richard. Baptism is based on the profession of at least one parent. If a child is adopted and the parent makes a credible profession, the child would be baptized based on the promise and command of God.



Why is the profession of a Parent needful? Maybe the child is still destined to know God and the grace conferred according to a paedo.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 28, 2010)

Since the issue was regarding Presbyterians, the needfulness is based on WCF Chapt 28:4 "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." and 1 Cor 7:14 for starters.

I have no doubt that a child may be destined to know God with or without baptism, but we Presbyterian's baptize them anyway!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 28, 2010)

Okay,,, So you wanna play the cards....



> Sanctification and New Covenant Membership
> 
> An issue that needs to be addressed involves what may be called covenantal sanctification. There are passages in the New Testament which some believe set forth a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation. Individuals that partake of this sanctification are supposedly members of the covenant for a season. They enjoy many of its outward and external blessings, even though they eventually fall away from the faith and are lost.
> 
> ...



the rest of the article is here. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/new-covenant-sanctification-pt-1-alan-conner-351/

BTW, this is one of the reasons given for a paedo position. I have always questioned it. Conferring?



> Why is the profession of a Parent needful? Maybe the child is still destined to know God and the grace conferred according to a paedo.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2010)

*Quote*


> Thus, some paedobaptists want to import into the New Covenant a type of sanctification found in the Old Covenant. They adopt a viewpoint where one can be, at least outwardly speaking, sanctified in some way that brings them into New Covenant membership, but falls short of actual salvation.



This type of sanctification was actually established before the Old Covenant, in the Covenant with Abraham. Also before Abraham, although there was no visible church, there was the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain.

The children of unbelievers are holy in the sense of being set apart unto God, by providence, for special promises, priviledges and responsibilities.

Unbelieving adults who are baptised and take the Lord's Supper are also bringing themselves within the bond of the covenant without having the inner reality of covenant love for God.

Like those who get married but don't love each other, a relationship is nevertheless established which cannot be ignored or which those around cannot pretend is not real in some sense, even if only legally real.

In baptism and the Lord's Supper, these aren't just games that are being played if the individual isn't a believer. 

A relationship with Christ is being established. If the individual concerned shouldn't be baptised or take the Lord's Supper, that is not a positive relationship, because as far as God is concerned, it would have been better for them not to be baptised or take the Lord's Supper. In the Scriptures this is emphasised even more strongly with respect to the Supper.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 29, 2010)

> Sanctification and New Covenant Membership
> 
> An issue that needs to be addressed involves what may be called covenantal sanctification. There are passages in the New Testament which some believe set forth a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation. Individuals that partake of this sanctification are supposedly members of the covenant for a season. They enjoy many of its outward and external blessings, even though they eventually fall away from the faith and are lost.



I'm not sure where this author is getting this.

Sanctification is part of the process of redemption (beginning and ending with) God. It necessarily flows from the sovereign act of regeneration. Yet, it does involve "free will" actions of the sinner who God has changed the basic nature of by regeneration.

There is not "a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation" as the author asserts.

There are people who profess falsely, of course, who ordinarily prove out they are not really believers in the presence of the covenant community, though.



> The impact of this line of thought on the issue of covenant membership and infant baptism is important. Many of our paedobaptist brethren believe that the New Testament teaches this kind of covenant sanctification. This belief becomes a reason for why they baptize their infants.



I think infant baptism is based on:

1) recognizing the position of privilege the child has having at least one believing parent and a covenant community of believers through which tend to come the ordinary means of grace (Word, sacrament, prayer, etc.)
2) recognizing that real grace (not necessary salvation, but real unmerited favor of God) comes through those ordinary means

Really it is based on the faith of the parents (or at least one believing parent).

Upon this basis, promises are recognized, and signed through the sacrament of baptism.



> In effect, this view is embraced in order to justify the practice of baptizing their infants even though some of them will grow up, depart from the faith and become “covenant-breakers.”



They prove out that they never really were believers in the first place. Though they had great means of grace, they rejected, to their condemnation, such great salvation presented to them over and over. It's a bad place to be.

But being in the visible covenant community is not the same as being in the (invisible) body of Christ.



> They argue that since their children are holy, or sanctified (1 Corinthians 7:14), they belong to the covenant.



"Holy" in the sense of being set apart to a position of privilege, not in the sense of being perfect or actually redeemed. Many times, God uses family and covenant community to bring infant children to faith, we might even say that is the ordinary means... but it is not always the case.



> Therefore, even as infants, they should receive the covenant sign of baptism. But, since they also admit that not all of their baptized infants grow up to embrace the faith, they have to hold to a form of covenant sanctification that can be lost. Thus, some paedobaptists want to import into the New Covenant a type of sanctification found in the Old Covenant.



I think the idea is more along the lines of "not all Israel is Israel." There were many outwardly part of ethnic Israel (e.g. by circumcision), but inwardly proved out they were not redeemed. Many examples of that in Scripture, both generally and specifically.



> They adopt a viewpoint where one can be, at least outwardly speaking, sanctified in some way that brings them into New Covenant membership, but falls short of actual salvation.



Yes, in a sense that one can squander an inheritance. In the end, they have nothing.



> Worse still, some go so far as to believe that their infant children are holy in the sense of being saved, being in Christ and having received the Spirit, but still in the end can fall away from grace and be lost. For some of them, their infant children actually receive these blessings when they are baptized. Thus, they embrace something very near, if not identical, to what the Roman Catholics teach about baptismal regeneration.



I don't know of any of the historic confessions that claim baptism itself saves. The Westminster Standards say the opposite.



> Westminster Confession
> 
> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> ...



While there is actual grace (God's unmerited favor) conferred, it is not salvic. God could choose to accompany salvation with it, but baptism does not confer salvation itself.

While some may have views beyond the Westminster Confession, the most it says, and I think wisely so, is that God can regenerate anyone, anytime, anyplace, under any circumstances, at His pleasure, including infant children.

The Westminster summary says that while He can save infants, we have no clear Scriptural basis to know how many, or how few, that might be.



> But there are numerous problems with these assertions about covenant sanctification. In this chapter, we will examine some of the Scriptures used to argue for these assertions. We will examine this view of a sanctification which does not save in the end, yet, nevertheless, makes a person, especially infants, members of the covenant for a limited period of time and, therefore, worthy of baptism. Let us begin, however, by reviewing one of the elements of the New Covenant that we established previously in chapters seven and eight.



Perhaps the term the author uses, "covenant sanctification" is used in some communions- but I've not heard it used. Certainly covenant community is used by God to help us grow in Christ, we would ordinarily expect that.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2010)

Randy,

I agree with Scott in that I'm not sure what this guy is driving at. But I would assume that the card you mentioned in your post is in reference to 1 Cor 7:14. I'll let Charles Hodge explain it to you:


1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 



> “The proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a correct principle.
> The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already seen that the word (agiazein), to sanctify, means, 1. To cleanse. 2. To render morally pure. 3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow. Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just mention, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priest, the whole theocratical people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. What God hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” Acts 10:15. Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” 1 Tim. 4:5. This use of the word is specifically frequent in application to persons and communities. The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,” Rom. 11:26. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children. Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of god, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were nonetheless conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. When therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connect with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, Matt. 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though it’s internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus the pagan husband in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother were children of the covenant.
> That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Rom. 11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” It will be remembered that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belong to the church. If this be correct, which no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner. Other wise, you children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the church. To this it is indeed object by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.
> The other view of the argument is this: ‘If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.’ This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally mean the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposed your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in force, under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church. They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized – because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyte fuerit et cum ea ejus – si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelite per omnia. See WETSTEIN in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. within the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy.”


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 29, 2010)

Well we don't want to confuse sanctification proper i.e. the Holy Spirit's work of the new birth and definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, and perfection at death with other uses of the word "sanctification". We've already had a discussion recently on the PB about Christ's "sanctification" vis-a-vis the believer's sanctification.

But there is a real sense in which the covenant child is set apart by God, unto God, by birth or by being placed in a godly family, for special privileges, promises and responsibility, in a similar way to the way the Children of Israel were "sanctified".

We have to be careful that theological language doesn't become confusing even although the concepts may be orthodox e.g. by multiple uses of the word, "sanctification".


----------

