# infant baptism same concept as infant dedication?



## thistle93

Hi! As a reformed baptist I am concerned by a group of covenant theologians who seem to say one cannot be truly covenantal unless they believe in infant baptism. 

First, who was the first to tie OT circumcision to NT baptism? Because there is no place in Scripture that makes that jump. That does not mean that it is incorrect but we need to be careful our preconceived hermeneutic does not drive our interpretations. 

Second, as a reformed baptist, I believe just as strongly as one who believes in infant baptism, that God made covenant not only with individuals but with families. And that covenant was not the same as salvation but a sign of blessing, because there were those in the covenant that were not saved. 

Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents. I also know that infant dedications are not in the Bible but neither are specific instances of infants (it does mentions young children and families) being baptized. 

My point here is not in to get into a debate over the merits of believers baptism over infant baptism but that both reformed baptist and those who practice infant baptism have equal regard for God's covanental relationship. 

Any books on this topic?

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Willem van Oranje

thistle93 said:


> Hi! As a reformed baptist I am concerned by a group of covenant theologians who seem to say one cannot be truly covenantal unless they believe in infant baptism.
> 
> First, who was the first to tie OT circumcision to NT baptism? Because there is no place in Scripture that makes that jump. That does not mean that it is incorrect but we need to be careful our preconceived hermeneutic does not drive our interpretations.
> 
> Second, as a reformed baptist, I believe just as strongly as one who believes in infant baptism, that God made covenant not only with individuals but with families. And that covenant was not the same as salvation but a sign of blessing, because there were those in the covenant that were not saved.
> 
> Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents. I also know that infant dedications are not in the Bible but neither are specific instances of infants (it does mentions young children and families) being baptized.
> 
> My point here is not in to get into a debate over the merits of believers baptism over infant baptism but that both reformed baptist and those who practice infant baptism have equal regard for God's covanental relationship.
> 
> Any books on this topic?
> 
> For His Glory-
> Matthew


 
The difference is that Baptists separate the sign from the thing signified, whereas the Reformed distinguish without separating. Baptism signifies and seals all of the blessings of the New Covenant including the effectual call, regeneration, justification, etc. We baptize our children in faith that God will save them based on his covenant promise to be a God to us and to our seed. We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.) 

Is this what you believe?

And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament. 

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I strongly disagree with you on a few points. Dedication might have one spot in the scriptures. It is with Hanna on dedicating her son Samuel in the Old Testament. It is not commanded nor is it something to be performed necessarily as a Covenant sign. Hanna pleaded with God for a son and she made a vow to give him to the service of God if God would be gracious to her. It was a vow she fulfilled without a ceremony of dedication. We are required by scripture to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It doesn't need a ceremony. I believe all of creation is commanded to do this. 

We do not see we dedication as the same sign of the covenant as those who hold to infant baptism. 

I could recommend books on the topic but I would encourage you to get a firm understanding on Covenant Theology first. I am not saying you don't understand it but I am suggesting that you are presenting some novel ideas in your Original Post.


----------



## Marrow Man

Hannah's dedication of Samuel is nothing like the infant dedication services that churches do today. She made a vow (in an extraordinary circumstance) to give him to the Lord all the days of his life. She kept him until he was weaned (probably age 2 or 3, so technically not an infant) and then brought him with elements of sacrifice (the shedding of blood) to Eli and gave him to the judge of Israel (i.e., Samuel was no longer in Elkanah's household).

One more thing to consider: even though it's not mentioned in the text, I would safe it's safe to assume Samuel was circumcised. This is interesting in two regards: 1) even though there is no explicit mention of the circumcision, I don't know anyone who would deny this, and it would serve as a good and necessary consequence of assuming an ordinance has been performed even though there is no direct mention of it (much like Timothy at the beginning of Acts 16); 2) this would not mean that dedication somehow replaces circumcision, since Samuel was both circumcised _and_ dedicated by his mother.


----------



## lynnie

Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple for the redemption ceremony of the first born. It signified that the firstborn son belonged to God. Before the creation of the Levitical Priesthood every firstborn male was to work full time in God’s service. But this was changed with Numbers 3:40-41: 

“The LORD said to Moses: Record every firstborn male of the Israelite people from the age of one month up, and make a list of their names: and take the Levites for Me, the LORD, in place of every firstborn among the Israelite people, and the cattle of the Levites in place of every firstborn among the cattle of the Israelites.” The child was redeemed with money.

Hebrews says that we are come to the church of the firstborn. So a baby dedication declares that a baby is set apart unto God as part of the church of the firstborn. It is a covenantal act.


However, as Riley points out, _And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament. _

So I would have to say dedication is very covenantal for some parents, but, if you are going to do something symbolizing that the child belongs to the covenant people, you may as well baptize, seems to me. I guess the average dedication is just affirming that the child is in some way set apart by the faith of the parents, without quite as much promise as a paedo baptism? In my Baptist experience parents have very little of any theology about dedications, it is just traditional.


----------



## thistle93

*reply*



Willem van Oranje said:


> The difference is that Baptists separate the sign from the thing signified, whereas the Reformed distinguish without separating. Baptism signifies and seals all of the blessings of the New Covenant including the effectual call, regeneration, justification, etc. We baptize our children in faith that God will save them based on his covenant promise to be a God to us and to our seed. We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)
> 
> Is this what you believe?
> 
> And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament.
> 
> Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



--------- 
Hi! I did not want this to turn into a thread about baptism but I have a few things. 

Infant circumcision of the OT did not represent the infant being regenerated or justified, so why would infant baptism? Again both OT & NT covenants and salvation are two separate issues. Are you telling me there are infants who experience the effectual call, regeneration, justification through their baptism but in the end are not saved? By saying that baptism is a seal of such upon infants, it sure sounds like it. For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not. There are those who come out of Christian homes who become reprobates and those who come out of the most horrible homes who are elect. This is not an issue of the covenant. So I can see how we do disagree.

Colossians 2:11-12 is referring to those who are alive in Christ (those who have received Him vs.1, through faith). This would not include infants.

You use signifies and seals in the same sentence but I believe these are two opposite concepts. 

So while you would disagree on baptism issue, in your view can one who believes in believers baptism be included in those who espouse covenant theology?

Thank you!
For His Glory- Matthew


----------



## Scott1

thistle93 said:


> For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not.



Only to elaborate on this point a bit,
The infant child's baptism signifies the "holiness" of the child in the sense of being set apart to a position of privilege- having at least one believing parent who is a believer through whom might ordinarily be expected that the child be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Also, being part of a covenant community of believers, through which the ordinary means of grace come (e.g. the Word, sacraments).

So, in that sense, it is one thing baptism would "seal."

You are quite right that does not guarantee the salvation of the infant child, but does "sign" the special position of privilege to which he is set apart.

There are other things baptism signifies, including generational promises that God's grace would work along the descendants of a believer, not a guarantee of salvation, but a promise real grace is present.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

thistle93 said:


> ---------
> Hi! I did not want this to turn into a thread about baptism but I have a few things.



Great, brother. Shoot! 



> Infant circumcision of the OT did not represent the infant being regenerated or justified, so why would infant baptism?



Actually, that is precisely my point. OT circumcision did signify regeneration and justification for OT saints just as baptism does for NT saints. This is clear from the statement of the apostle which I quoted in Collosians, where he talks about the underlying spiritual meaning of circumcision. 



> Again both OT & NT covenants and salvation are two separate issues. Are you telling me there are infants who experience the effectual call, regeneration, justification through their baptism but in the end are not saved?



No, that's not what I'm saying. To quote from the Westminster Confession, 



> WCF 28:1 Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(1) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(2) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(3) of his ingrafting into Christ,(4) of regeneration,(5) of remission of sins,(6) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.



and



> WCF 28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;



In other words, it signifies regeneration and justification, but this does not imply that the infant is already regenerated and justified. Although he may or may not be regenerated and justified at or before the moment of baptism, the timing of these acts of Gods' Spirit is not tied to the moment of Baptism. It may well occur many years later, and yet the sacrament validly pointed to his future regeneration and justification, etc.



> By saying that baptism is a seal of such upon infants, it sure sounds like it.



It's like a stamp on a letter. It's God's promise to grant the child the grace of the new birth along with all the other blessings of the New Covenant.



> For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not. There are those who come out of Christian homes who become reprobates and those who come out of the most horrible homes who are elect. This is not an issue of the covenant. So I can see how we do disagree.



There are exceptions, as you have noted, but there is also a rule. As the Canons of Dordtrecht stipulate, believing parents ought not to doubt the salvation of their infant children. 



> Colossians 2:11-12 is referring to those who are alive in Christ (those who have received Him vs.1, through faith). This would not include infants.



True, it is speaking of those who are alive in Christ. (Which may include infants, like in the case of infant John the Baptist.) The point is that what may be described as a spiritual baptism may also be described as a spiritual circumcision, because baptism and circumcision both denote the same thing, that is, participation in the Covenant of Grace and all its benefts, i. e. regeneration, justification, perseverance, sanctification, glorification, etc. So if they denote the same thing for God's people, then that means baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament. For each one there is an outward sign/seal with the same underlying spiritual meaning attached to both, to be used under their respective administrations. You can't utterly separate the sign from the thing it signifies.



> You use signifies and seals in the same sentence but I believe these are two opposite concepts.


 They are not opposite in Reformed theology. It's not a bare sign, it's an authoritative sign with God's promise affixed to it, like a stamp on a letter.



> So while you would disagree on baptism issue, in your view can one who believes in believers baptism be included in those who espouse covenant theology?



No, although I recognize that some Baptists are closer to Covenant Theology than others. Once a Baptist fully embraces Covenant Theology, the case for infant baptism is closed. This happens frequently when Baptists study Covenant theology, I have found. They become paedo-baptists.


----------



## thistle93

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I strongly disagree with you on a few points. Dedication might have one spot in the scriptures. It is with Hanna on dedicating her son Samuel in the Old Testament. It is not commanded nor is it something to be performed necessarily as a Covenant sign. Hanna pleaded with God for a son and she made a vow to give him to the service of God if God would be gracious to her. It was a vow she fulfilled without a ceremony of dedication. We are required by scripture to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It doesn't need a ceremony. I believe all of creation is commanded to do this.
> 
> We do not see we dedication as the same sign of the covenant as those who hold to infant baptism.
> 
> I could recommend books on the topic but I would encourage you to get a firm understanding on Covenant Theology first. I am not saying you don't understand it but I am suggesting that you are presenting some novel ideas in your Original Post.


 
Thank you! I did forget to mention about Hannah and Samuel. I agree it does not need a ceremony but the ceremony helps the parents and the congregation remember their responsibility before God to raise the child in the Lord. Really it should not be called an infant dedication but really it is a parent/congregation dedication. 

Even if you disagree that infant dedications are not a sign of the covenant, like circumcision, and there is not a need of a ceremony, hopefully you would see they are the outpouring of those who believe in covenantal theology but not infant baptism. 

When you say we do not see dedication as a sign of the covenant, who do you mean? Surly you don't believe all reformed baptist believe the same on every issue. Are you meaning historically or currently? Have these changed over the years?

You said my interpretation was novel. Have you never heard this type of thinking before? 

My main point in this thread was not to defend dedication as a sign of covenant but that those who believe in believers baptism can be just as covenantal as those who believe in infant baptism. 

I believe I have a semi-good view of covenant theology (probably not as good as you) but maybe not of the majority reformed baptist view. What do the majority of reformed baptist believe is the new sign of covenant that replaced circumcision? 

I would love a few book recommendations. 

Thank you so much for all your help and insights!


For His Glory-
Matthew Wilson

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

So you are saying that there are infants that have been promised by God through their baptism regeneration and justification that will not receive it, being that not all who are baptized are saved?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple for the redemption ceremony of the first born. It signified that the firstborn son belonged to God. Before the creation of the Levitical Priesthood every firstborn male was to work full time in God’s service. But this was changed with Numbers 3:40-41:
> 
> “The LORD said to Moses: Record every firstborn male of the Israelite people from the age of one month up, and make a list of their names: and take the Levites for Me, the LORD, in place of every firstborn among the Israelite people, and the cattle of the Levites in place of every firstborn among the cattle of the Israelites.” The child was redeemed with money.
> 
> Hebrews says that we are come to the church of the firstborn. So a baby dedication declares that a baby is set apart unto God as part of the church of the firstborn. It is a covenantal act.
> 
> 
> However, as Riley points out, _And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament. _
> 
> So I would have to say dedication is very covenantal for some parents, but, if you are going to do something symbolizing that the child belongs to the covenant people, you may as well baptize, seems to me. I guess the average dedication is just affirming that the child is in some way set apart by the faith of the parents, without quite as much promise as a paedo baptism? In my Baptist experience parents have very little of any theology about dedications, it is just traditional.



Found your post very helpful. So maybe better to refer to infant dedication as a covenantal act than a sign of circumcision.
Sadly agree to many that it is just a tradition and do not know the foundation behind it. This is why it is vital that pastors do a better job explaining this.
Thank you! Matthew


----------



## Herald

Matthew,

The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years. 

In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.


----------



## toddpedlar

To reply to your last post, Matthew... 

infant dedication can only be thought of as a 'covenantal act' in the sense that people who do it think they're doing something covenantal. It is not given in Scripture in any sense as a covenantal act in the sense that both circumcision and baptism, but as you have said it's more or less 'just tradition' - man's tradition. Nowhere are dedications commanded as an act of faith by parents (though we do have some sort of dedications in narratives - they aren't normative). If dedications become an act expected of parents for their children, as effectively a commanded ordinance of the church, then the pastor (no matter how well he explains it) is overstepping his authority.


----------



## thistle93

Herald said:


> Matthew,
> 
> The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years.
> 
> In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.


 
When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me. 

I do not believe just because something is not mentioned in NT that it is therefore forbidden in a worship service. Only those things that go against Scripture or get in the way of the primary means of worship are to be forbidden. 

I agree that it is actually a parent/congregation dedication that takes place. I try to make this clear whenever I dedicate a baby. I tell them (especially the father) that they are primarily responsible for the spiritual welfare and upbringing of the child.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Hi! Do either of these verse have any merit with child dedication as part of a covenant act? 

Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)
15(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 (English Standard Version)
12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(A) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


----------



## toddpedlar

thistle93 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years.
> 
> In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me.
> 
> I do not believe just because something is not mentioned in NT that it is therefore forbidden in a worship service. Only those things that go against Scripture or get in the way of the primary means of worship are to be forbidden.
Click to expand...


I suggest based on the last two paragraphs that you look up and study the 22nd chapter of the confession that you have claimed in your profile as the one to which you subscribe, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. It clearly describes what is the basis for elements of worship as those things expressly commanded by God in His Word. You also should look at LBCF chapter 1, which also is useful in understanding the RPW, and LBCF 21:2, which specifies that it is impermissible to bind the consciences of church members by commanding anything not commanded in the Word of God.


----------



## Herald

thistle93 said:


> When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me.



Matthew, a Reformed Baptist is different from a Calvinistic Baptist in many ways. First, RB's view scripture within a covenantal framework as opposed to the dispensational view of scripture. The RPW deals specifically with worship. You can find a good explanation of the RB view of the RPW by clicking HERE. Additionally, here is a good article on the distinctives of a Reformed Baptist.

As to the RPW, it's not because something is not mentioned in the NT that is forbidden, although New Testament worship is not the same as OT worship. The driving force behind the RB understanding of the RPW is what God has revealed to his church, through scripture, as to how he wants to be worshiped. Hannah's dedication of Samuel into religious service was a private matter, not a corporate worship matter. And since the New Testament church does not worship in accordance with Old Testament ceremonial rules, such a thing could not be repeated today. I believe that you are hard pressed to find a positive command in scripture to practice infant dedications.


----------



## toddpedlar

thistle93 said:


> [/COLOR]Hi! Do either of these verse have any merit with child dedication as part of a covenant act?
> 
> Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)
> 15(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 (English Standard Version)
> 12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(A) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


 
Not in my opinion. Neither of them makes any mention of the act of baby dedications. They certainly point to a) the active nature of the choice to raise a house to the Lord (which all husbands/fathers, Baptists and non-Baptists alike, are to take up) and b) to the nature of the children of a believing parent as set apart already by virtue of their being children of a believing parent - i.e., in my opinion, already by their nature those Peter referred to when he said that "the promise is unto you and your children".


----------



## paculina

Matthew, so let me ask you a question. How do you view the children in your congregation? Do you see them as a part of the same covenant community as their believing parents? Or do you see them as being separate from their believing parents, as a mission field needing to be evangelized and to be treated as non-believers until they make a profession of faith? 

I think this is the crux of the difference between infant baptism and infant dedication. Infant baptism intends to make the statement that since this child is the child of believing parents, he or she is entitled to all the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and blessings of the covenant community as his or her parents (except communion) and is to be treated as a believer until they prove otherwise. Baptism is a sign that this child is indeed a part of this covenant because of the faith of the parents. 

Baptist theology and practice often separates children from their believing parents and treats the children as a mission field needing to be reached rather than part of the covenant community. Thus the reason for the dedication instead of the baptism - the child is seen as an unbeliever, an outsider to the community of faith, and the dedication is the promise of the parents to do their best to evangelize the child in hopes he or she will come to faith later on. The child is not entitled to and does not receive the benefits and responsibilities of the covenant community until they make a profession of faith.


----------



## Herald

paculina said:


> the child is seen as an unbeliever



The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.


----------



## Mushroom

Herald said:


> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> the child is seen as an unbeliever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. *Infants are not born Christians*.
Click to expand...

John the Baptist kicking in Elizabeth's womb notwithstanding?


----------



## paculina

Herald said:


> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> the child is seen as an unbeliever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.
Click to expand...

 
OK, point taken. Perhaps I didn't say that quite right. But my point is that the children of believers are viewed very differently in churches that practice dedication as opposed to those that practice baptism.


----------



## thistle93

*reply*



> 2) I do not see the infant dedication as an act of worship to God or as a church ordinance. It is just a commitment of the parents/congregation to the Lord to take their responsibility serious.


Is it taking place _during_ the worship service? If so, how can it be said not to be an act of worship?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> the child is seen as an unbeliever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.
Click to expand...

 
How can you know this? It seems that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. On top of that, if an infant cannot be regenerate, then no children dying in infamy can be saved. Is this your position?


----------



## littlepeople

I've always wondered that, and never heard a sound answer

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

oh wait. Infamy ha. just noticed that


----------



## Willem van Oranje

littlepeople said:


> I've always wondered that, and never heard a sound answer
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------
> 
> oh wait. Infamy ha. just noticed that


 
Oops. That's a typo from this Swype thingy on my Droid.


----------



## thistle93

Willem van Oranje said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> the child is seen as an unbeliever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you know this? It seems that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. On top of that, if an infant cannot be regenerate, then no children dying in infamy can be saved. Is this your position?
Click to expand...

 
Please don't tell me you are equating John leaping in the womb with regeneration.
While I believe that God's mercy is extended to infants who die in birth and that they are taken to Heaven we cannot be dogmatic about the fate one way or the other.


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> the child is seen as an unbeliever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child _is _an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you know this? It seems that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. On top of that, if an infant cannot be regenerate, then no children dying in infamy can be saved. Is this your position?
Click to expand...


William, we cannot _presume _regeneration in the womb. Both of our confessions speak of "elect infants dying in infancy." However, this side of glory we are not able to witness the evidence of faith. We must leave that in the hands of God. But we do know what scripture teaches; namely that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Paul told the Ephesians that, in their former spiritual condition, they were dead in their trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). And while John the Baptist and Jeremiah may have very well been regenerated in the womb, that is not the normative state by which man is born into this world (see the previous passages I referenced). 

RB's view every person who has not professed faith as a mission field, and I am glad that they do. If God blesses an RB couple with a child then that child should be raised to hear and see the Gospel at work. Why? Because it is the means of salvation. RB's are often accused of treating our children as little pagans. But if that were true we would expose them to paganism in our worship and practice. Actually, we view our children as gifts from God; understanding that God does bless covenantally through families and that we trust and hope that our children will come to faith in Christ. It all comes down to what God has clearly expressed in scripture. Good and necessary inference is fine, but there is no need for it when scripture speaks plainly.


----------



## toddpedlar

thistle93 said:


> Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents.


 
I just now caught this in the original post.

Your characterization of OT circumcision misses the boat entirely. Circumcision was a sign of entrance into the visible covenant community. To call it merely a "sign of blessing and dedication on the placqe of believing parents" completely mischaracterizes the ceremony. I'm not sure where this interpretation comes from, but it isn't grounded on the Scriptural provision of circumcision. 

You also seem to be asserting that baby dedications can serve as a sign of the covenant. You readily admit, though, that there are no infant dedication ceremonies in Scripture, and later in the thread, that it is a man-made tradition. We do not have the purview to invent covenant signs. Circumcision is manifestly shown to be a covenant sign (and commanded as such) all over the Old Testament scriptures. Baptism is similarly clearly commanded as a covenant sign. One might disagree on the objects of baptism - and clearly we do - but you cannot get away from the fact that in Scripture both Baptism and Circumcision are given as God's commanded covenant signs of entrance. Baby Dedication can in NO way be offered as a "new" covenant sign since men cannot dictate the terms of God's covenant and engage in such invention of signs for His covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The promise was that John the Baptist would be "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb," Lk.1:15.

The fulfillment comes in v.41, and is commented on by the Spirit filled Elizabeth (so she spoke most truly), v44, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

What joy? A holy, sanctified joy; can it be doubted?

The only reason to say that John is not regenerated _in utero_ is to claim _apriori_ (because "that can't possibly be the case") that infants are incapable of such a blessing, _ergo_, some other explanation must be sought.

But the other conclusion is just as valid, and makes good sense of the data. The God of miracles can regenerate anyone, at any time, by giving that person faith, which is not dependent on a certain state of mind. The predicate is, that "faith" is not primarily an intellectual assent (however much, or when, the intellect is engaged), but it is a whole-soul operation, principally of love that observes and clings, much like a newborn child does its mother.

Christ is able to give to the least "capable" (humanly speaking) sufficient sight of him (with "eyes to see") and a heart made willing to embrace him who is freely offered to them as their Redeemer. It is for this cause we have hope for the infants who die in infancy, or the mental incapable--and that without resort to concocting some alternative way besides faith, for our hope in their salvation.

We need no hypothetical (and unbiblical) "age of innocence/accountability"; no justification by fiat; no post-mortem gospel-presentation; or any other reason. We may take the Bible at its word, when it says, "Without *faith* it is impossible to please God." Ergo, some infants, God must be able to make the most perfect little believers in him. Else, no infants can be elect or saved whatever (not being able yet to intellectually apprehend Christ in the gospel), and dying are lost.

Indeed, acknowledging election of some infants dying in infancy, we say that having been bestowed by Holy Ghost with a seed of faith, God does bring them directly to heaven where they only, ever, grow in grace and knowledge of Christ their Savior.

Now then, if John the Baptist (as just one example) was saved so soon, and surely there are those infants (like the first son of David and Bathsheba) who are in heaven because of salvation by faith alone, who are we to say that other infants who do not die in infancy may also be saved before they can articulate the faith they hold, or the Christ they love?

It falls to us, who are the instrumental means of developing our children's intellectual faith (assuming they are so endowed, and not so handicapped) and the rest of their development, to see that in time they can articulate the faith in which they are reared. We are not responsible should they ultimately reject the faith, the proof of their apostasy and reprobation, if they like Esau spurn the promise. They only show thereby that they never had God's mercy from the beginning.


----------



## nnatew24

Willem van Oranje said:


> We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)



Laying aside everything else for the moment, this is an unbelievable statement. Do you really believe this? It seems as though you're making this statement from a very small vantage point of historical reality. This may be the case in your particular church or town, but it certainly isn't the case historically, or even nationally right now.

I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.

The rival to this now days is the Baptist practice of baptizing anyone with a pulse (even children as young as 2 based upon a 'profession of faith'), and these kids growing up their entire lives believing that their little decision is proof of their salvation.


----------



## Marrow Man

nnatew24 said:


> I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.



This is not evidence that it is "a violation of God's word" any more than credo/adult-only baptism is a violation of God's word as evidenced by the number of folks I've met who are also trusting in their (adult) baptism rather than trusting in Christ. Taking this line of reasoning, someone might come to a conclusion that women should not partake of the Lord's Supper (since there is no direct command in Scripture) and claim it to be "a violation of God's word" after considering a number of females who have come to the Lord's table in an unworthy and unrepentant manner.


----------



## nnatew24

Marrow Man said:


> nnatew24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence that it is "a violation of God's word" any more than credo/adult-only baptism is a violation of God's word as evidenced by the number of folks I've met who are also trusting in their (adult) baptism rather than trusting in Christ.
Click to expand...

 
You're right. "Evidence" was a poor choice of wording. Perhaps 'Anecdotal evidence' or 'circumstantial evidence' or 'experiential evidence' would've been better. My point is simply that I personally perceive a connection between the paedobaptist going beyond the bounds of scripture and harmful effects of faith/assurance within the visible church, *rather* than the other way around as was affirmed.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

thistle93 said:


> Please don't tell me you are equating John leaping in the womb with regeneration.
> While I believe that God's mercy is extended to infants who die in birth and that they are taken to Heaven we cannot be dogmatic about the fate one way or the other.


 
Sorry to dissapoint you, but that's exactly what I am saying. John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. I don't think he's the only one.


----------



## Marrow Man

> You're right. "Evidence" was a poor choice of wording. Perhaps 'Anecdotal evidence' or 'circumstantial evidence' or 'experiential evidence' would've been better. My point is simply that I personally perceive a connection between the paedobaptist going beyond the bounds of scripture and harmful effects of faith/assurance within the visible church, *rather* than the other way around as was affirmed.



But your premise is faulty; you claim that paedobaptists go beyond Scripture, but that is merely an assumption on your part. Also keep in mind that the default confession of this board is the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a paedobaptistic document. You may not agree with the WCF on this point, but please tread lightly in this area.

Also keep in mind that this is not a baptism thread (per the OP), so let's try to steer clear of that area as much as possible. I think the main question of the OP has been answered a thoroughly as possible (i.e., in covenant theology infant baptism and infant dedication are not the same concept), so perhaps this thread has gone about as far as it can w/o entering the baptism realm. But perhaps there can be more discussion on the latter portion of the OP, which seems to consider whether rejection of infant baptism but acceptance of infant dedication is a consistent substitute in a Reformed perspective of covenant theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nathan,

My "experiential" evidence of serving and teaching many at a Baptist Church for years was a trust in their own baptisms as a sign they had been "born again". By your anecdotal standard, it would appear that decisional Baptism is anti-Scriptural. I can't remember the last time I've run into a person baptized as a child who believes he's saved solely because he was baptized in a Church.

In fact, which theological principle more naturally leads to presumption concerning baptism:
1. The paedo view: Baptism is not administered on the basis of the Church's judgment that the person is saved but as a ministerial declaration of Promise.
2. The credo view: Baptism is administered because the Church is confident that the person is saved. It is not to be administered unless the Church is sufficiently confident of regeneration.

Forget about silly anecdotes but focus on principle. By _Confession_, Baptist Churches ground the _basis_ of baptism upon the disposition of the individual. Reformed Confessions, in contrast, view Baptism as declarative of something promissory _outside_ of the individual.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> William, we cannot _presume _regeneration in the womb.



Agreed, except in that case I mentioned where the Holy Ghost has indicated as much. I'm all for not presuming regeneration in the womb, but I also don't want to presume an unregenerate state in the womb. That seems to be what you're doing.




> Both of our confessions speak of "elect infants dying in infancy." However, this side of glory we are not able to witness the evidence of faith. We must leave that in the hands of God.



Yes, in faith that God will fulfill his promise, as the Canons of Dort teach.



> But we do know what scripture teaches; namely that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Paul told the Ephesians that, in their former spiritual condition, they were dead in their trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). And while John the Baptist and Jeremiah may have very well been regenerated in the womb, that is not the normative state by which man is born into this world (see the previous passages I referenced).



It seems a lot for you to presume what is and is not the "normative state" of the birth of one of God's elect. Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:1 do not support this presumption. They would be just as true of someone who had been born regenerate. 



> RB's view every person who has not professed faith as a mission field, and I am glad that they do. If God blesses an RB couple with a child then that child should be raised to hear and see the Gospel at work. Why? Because it is the means of salvation. RB's are often accused of treating our children as little pagans. But if that were true we would expose them to paganism in our worship and practice. Actually, we view our children as gifts from God; understanding that God does bless covenantally through families and that we trust and hope that our children will come to faith in Christ. It all comes down to what God has clearly expressed in scripture. Good and necessary inference is fine, but there is no need for it when scripture speaks plainly.


 
My contention is that when you teach your children to pray "Our Father" and catechize them, you are treating them as disciples, not mission fields. If you were more consistent with your view, you would not teach them these things. You would just be evangelizing them. But I am thankful for this inconsistency of Baptists. Have you ever told your children that Jesus died for them?

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------




nnatew24 said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laying aside everything else for the moment, this is an unbelievable statement. Do you really believe this?
Click to expand...


Absolutely, and it's evidence that God is fulfilling his covenant promise. Do you really think that the children of believers are no more likely to die as Christians than the children of unbelievers? 



> I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.



And where exactly is your evidence for this? Baptism is indeed a Sacrament of Jesus Christ intended to support our faith and give us assurance of salvation. The Reformed Christian looks back to his baptism, whenever performed, and thinks, "just as I was baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, so God will pardon me all my sins for faith in Christ." Baptism is a great blessing, and it also brings with it the covenant obligations of lifelong faith and obedience on the part of the person baptized. 

I try to mention this covenant obligation incurred at baptism whenever I'm speaking with someone who I know has been baptized. I've found it to be a good conversation starter with Catholics and Orthodox, among others. "Are you living in light of your baptism into the Holy Trinity?", I ask.


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> It seems a lot for you to presume what is and is not the "normative state" of the birth of one of God's elect. Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:1 do not support this presumption. They would be just as true of someone who had been born regenerate.



Riley, I could have supplied an exhaustive list of verses that indicate man is born in a state of enmity with God. I thought brevity would suffice. I stand by what I consider to be the clear teaching of scripture that it is normative for mankind to be born unregenerate.



Willem van Oranje said:


> My contention is that when you teach your children to pray "Our Father" and catechize them, you are treating them as disciples, not mission fields



God is the God of all; whether Christian or not. That said, what do you know in regards to what I taught my daughter to do? As the father, I am the one who prayed during family worship. I allowed my daughter to witness the Christian life and hear the Gospel in the home and at church. Cornelius is an example of a man who, In my humble opinion, did not know God but prayed to him. If a Christian parent allows their child to pray I have no problem with that. It's not like there is some paradigm that must be followed. Let a child learn to call upon the name of the Lord and understand the significance of such an act. May the Holy Spirit impress upon the heart of a young one the need to reconcile with the God their parents worship and who they are being taught to pray to. Neither Presbyterians or Baptists have exclusivity in this area. 

In the end I keep coming back to scripture. What does scripture plainly teach?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> Riley, I could have supplied an exhaustive list of verses that indicate man is born in a state of enmity with God. I thought brevity would suffice. I stand by what I consider to be the clear teaching of scripture that it is normative for mankind to be born unregenerate.



I'm still looking for one verse, any verse, which states, as you say, that it is normative for God's elect to be born unregenerate. I don't find in Scripture that we are given any indication of whether the elect are more frequently born regenerate or unregenerate. Therefore, I contend that the answer to this question remains hidden in the mind of God.



> God is the God of all; whether Christian or not.



This is true, but not all have a right to call him, "our Father", and to pray to him as a loving Father. Only those who have been adopted in Christ have such a relation to him.



> That said, what do you know in regards to what I taught my daughter to do? As the father, I am the one who prayed during family worship.



I don't know. Forgive me if I was being presumptuous. It's just that every Christian parent I've ever known treats his or her children as disciples in practical terms. That's the point I was trying to make. Spurgeon wrote his Catechism. You haven't used Catechisms? 



> If a Christian parent allows their child to pray I have no problem with that. It's not like there is some paradigm that must be followed.



So you mean that it might not be required for a Christian parent to teach his children to pray? This is the first I've ever heard this from a Christian. If that's your position, it is very consistent with the Baptist view of the children of believers. But I truly hope that you are not consistent in this way.



> In the end I keep coming back to scripture. What does scripture plainly teach?


 
That's what I want to go to. The Scriptures plainly teach that there is promise for the children of believers under the New Covenant. In order to take a contrary position, one would have to ignore the restatements of the promise (e. g. Acts 2:39) and read into the New Testament a removal of the promise, which sadly leaves one with something less than a "new and better covenant."


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> I'm still looking for one verse, any verse, which states, as you say, that it is normative for God's elect to be born unregenerate.




Riley, I am going to focus on this one statement of yours. Every person born into this world is born in sin. Romans 3 is perfectly clear on that. 



> Romans 3:9-18 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."





> Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,



Additionally...



> Psalm 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.



The scripture is crystal clear; all of mankind is brought forth in iniquity. This is even true of the elect who come to faith some time after their birth.



> Ephesians 2:1-2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.



Paul is addressing adult Ephesian believers who are included in his statement on predestination in Eph. 1:5. These individuals were formally enemies of God even though they were predestined for adoption as sons (Eph. 1:5). Paul goes on and describes himself as one of those who followed the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 1:3) prior to his conversion. Certainly Paul was elect, no? So, the scripture clearly teaches that even the elect, prior to their conversion, were sinners and aliens; they were transgressors of God's law and worthy of judgment.

The only exception to this immutable biblical truth is in the area of elect infants dying in infancy. I concur that elect infants dying in infancy go to be with Christ. But we are not sure of the spiritual state of every infant who dies in infancy. As I said earlier, we hope in God's mercy and trust the child who dies infancy will go to be with him. But if a child does not die in infancy scripture is clear that they are born sinners until such time as they are converted. I honestly don't know why this is such a hard concept for a paedobaptist to accept.


----------



## Mushroom

Wow! Loving this thread! What bold and irrefutable defenses of the covenant promises of our loving God exemplified in the sacrament of baptizing the children the Lord has given His people!

And this coming Lord's Day there is to be, by God's wondrous grace, the baptism of FIVE - count 'em - FIVE covenant children at my Church. A family has been granted the faith to trust those covenant promises, and are following the example of the Philippian jailer. Our interim Pastor performs the best baptisms I have ever witnessed, so I know that many tears of joy will flow. I'm so looking forward to this! Praise God!


----------



## littlepeople

Praise God indeed!


----------



## thistle93

Willem van Oranje said:


> thistle93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you are equating John leaping in the womb with regeneration.
> While I believe that God's mercy is extended to infants who die in birth and that they are taken to Heaven we cannot be dogmatic about the fate one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to dissapoint you, but that's exactly what I am saying. John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. I don't think he's the only one.
Click to expand...

 
Funny you say we cannot presume one way or the other but right here this is exactly what you are doing. That means every baby ever born is regenerate. Because leaping and kicking is what babies do in the womb. I know because my wife is due in one week. Ask her how much babies like to move. Many of your points on the other areas have been helpful and informative but this one is just not.

For His Glory-
Matthew

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------




thistle93 said:


> 2) I do not see the infant dedication as an act of worship to God or as a church ordinance. It is just a commitment of the parents/congregation to the Lord to take their responsibility serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it taking place _during_ the worship service? If so, how can it be said not to be an act of worship?
Click to expand...


Hi! Maybe I should be a bit clearer. In a way our whole life is an act of worship.When I say it is not an act of worship, it is not at the same level of importance as things clearly given as commands for worship in Scripture (singing,giving,praying,preaching,Lord's Supper, baptism). We actually do the baby dedication after the end of the worship service, just so people do not get confused. 

For His Glory-
Matthew

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

All that has been said has been very insightful, though I think we have gone down a few rabbit holes. I agree that while infant dedications are not implicitly directed in Scripture the idea behind them is clearly given in Scripture. It is a covenant act, just as marriage is a covenant act. The vow is "Do you take this man/woman", "I do". Even though promise is between husband and wife it is ultimately a covenant to God. Same with infant dedication. The vow is "Do you promise to raise your child in the knowledge of God", "I do". Promise is between parent/congregation to child but again ultimately it is a covenant to God. My point was not that this somehow this mirrors circumcision in the OT but rather that it shows that those who practice believers baptism can still have a covenantal view of their children and influences how they raise their children. I know we will not all come to an agreement on this thread. But let us be humble and charitable to one another as the whole body of Christ. For His Glory- Matthew


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still looking for one verse, any verse, which states, as you say, that it is normative for God's elect to be born unregenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, I am going to focus on this one statement of yours. Every person born into this world is born in sin. Romans 3 is perfectly clear on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:9-18 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Additionally...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scripture is crystal clear; all of mankind is brought forth in iniquity. This is even true of the elect who come to faith some time after their birth.
Click to expand...

 
What these Scriptures demonstrate is that all men are born into Adam. That is axiomatic. It really says nothing about the point at which God acts sovereignly upon an individual and regenerates. This is a spiritual act that does not depend on the person's willing. It also does not mean that the person conceived somehow escaped being "conceived in sin". No Reformed confession denies the imputation of Adam's guilt to all men apart from Christ.

I think the discussion is confusing regeneration with fruit. If God were to regenerate an individual in the womb then the seed of faith is going to look differently for someone who lacks the capacity to speak or articulate that faith. Faith, properly speaking, is not to be confused with confession or intellectual capacity but is a gift implanted as God condescends to show mercy and gift an individual with the same.

I'm not one to argue for the timing of regeneration in any life as I believe it speaks where God has not spoken. Where I see Baptist theology erring on this point is conflating understanding or confession with faith itself rather than recognizing that the timing or operation of these things is completely unknown to all but God. It's not, in the end, an argument that some children escape having Adam's guilt and corruption imputed to them but being dogmatic about the timing of God's grace to superabound in that person's life. There seems to be a hidden premise that regeneration must immediately precede understanding or confession and that is an unwarranted conclusion from the Scriptures. We simply do not know the timing of such things and to state otherwise contradicts our Lord's direct teaching on such things (John 3).


----------



## Marrow Man

thistle93 said:


> Funny you say we cannot presume one way or the other but right here this is exactly what you are doing. That means every baby ever born is regenerate. Because leaping and kicking is what babies do in the womb. I know because my wife is due in one week. Ask her how much babies like to move. Many of your points on the other areas have been helpful and informative but this one is just not.




Matthew, I don't think he is saying this simply because John leaped in his mother's womb, but because Luke 1:15 says, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb."


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Where I see Baptist theology erring on this point is conflating understanding or confession with faith itself rather than recognizing that the timing or operation of these things is completely unknown to all but God.



Rich, I'm not sure where you see this error in my argument. My point to Riley is that scripture makes it clear that everyone is born in sin. Outside of the subject of elect infants dying in infancy, every person who eventually comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ makes the change from sinner to saint. I pointed out that even Paul saw that dichotomy in himself (Eph. 2:3). For that reason we cannot presume upon the spiritual state of an infant other than what scripture is clear about. While the timing of God in calling his elect to faith is a mystery to us, the only evidence we have to support such an inward change is external. But external evidence really wasn't being argued here. Baptism is a sign, not a seal. It's application (or not) does not ensure salvation. I know that you know that. I'm simply adding it to keep the conversation I had with Riley in context.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I see Baptist theology erring on this point is conflating understanding or confession with faith itself rather than recognizing that the timing or operation of these things is completely unknown to all but God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I'm not sure where you see this error in my argument. My point to Riley is that scripture makes it clear that everyone is born in sin. Outside of the subject of elect infants dying in infancy, every person who eventually comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ makes the change from sinner to saint. I pointed out that even Paul saw that dichotomy in himself (Eph. 2:3). For that reason we cannot presume upon the spiritual state of an infant other than what scripture is clear about. While the timing of God in calling his elect to faith is a mystery to us, the only evidence we have to support such an inward change is external. But external evidence really wasn't being argued here. Baptism is a sign, not a seal. It's application (or not) does not ensure salvation. I know that you know that. I'm simply adding it to keep the conversation I had with Riley in context.
Click to expand...

 
Not a seal? If this is the Baptist position, this is a deep, fundamental difference between Baptists and the Reformed on what baptism is. It goes beyond our discussion of who the proper subjects are. For us, baptism is primarily a testimony from God for and regarding the person baptized. For Baptists, it is mainly a testimony of the person being baptized.


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> Not a seal? If this is the Baptist position, this is a deep, fundamental difference between Baptists and the Reformed on what baptism is.



The only seal is that of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; Eph. 4:30). Baptism is a sign and sign only. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians differ on this language in our respective confessions.



> 1689 LBC
> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized,* a sign* of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.





> WCF
> 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.


As far as disagreeing with the Reformed, well, who said that all the Reformed were paedobaptists?


----------



## Marrow Man

For what it's worth, the language of "sign and seal" is taken from Romans 4:11 -- "he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised..."


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> For what it's worth, the language of "sign and seal" is taken from Romans 4:11 -- "he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised..."



Tim, for the sake of context, thank you for pointing that out. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC considered the Pauline passages on the seal of the Spirit as indicating that it is the seal of the believer.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the language of "sign and seal" is taken from Romans 4:11 -- "he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, for the sake of context, thank you for pointing that out. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC considered the Pauline passages on the seal of the Spirit as indicating that it is the seal of the believer.
Click to expand...

 
There is an internal and an external seal, and the latter points to the former.


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> There is an internal and an external seal, and the latter points to the former.



There is an internal seal (the Spirit) and an external sign (baptism). We disagree.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Herald said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an internal and an external seal, and the latter points to the former.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an internal seal (the Spirit) and an external sign (baptism). We disagree.
Click to expand...

 
I am kind of envying Abraham right now, who had "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" that he could see and feel. You know, something he could look back on when Satan tempted him to doubt God's mercy toward him. That is, if we are now in under the New Covenant left without any external seal.


----------



## Herald

Willem van Oranje said:


> I am kind of envying Abraham right now, who had "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" that he could see and feel. You know, something he could look back on when Satan tempted him to doubt God's mercy toward him. That is, if we are now in under the New Covenant left without any external seal.



Riley, as a Baptist I can look at the sign of my salvation (baptism) and rejoice. I know that I have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, given as a pledge of my future inheritance. I wrote about this last year.

Of Road Signs and Baptism


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill, since circumcision was a sign and seal, and (if I am understanding you correctly), you are saying that baptism is only a sign, then is baptism is somehow lesser of an ordinance than circumcision?


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> Bill, since circumcision was a sign and seal, and (if I am understanding you correctly), you are saying that baptism is only a sign, then is baptism is somehow lesser of an ordinance than circumcision?



Tim, if anything, baptism is a greater ordinance than circumcision. Circumcision was applied to males only based on national identity. It was not a sign of faith, either of the covenant community or the individual. Baptism is sign of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is applied to those who confess faith in Christ (the Baptist position of worthy recipients). I understand why paedobaptists view baptism as both sign _and _seal. It makes sense, from your perspective, since you hold to a continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.


----------



## Marrow Man

Since circumcision existed prior to national Israel, it cannot simply be a sign of national identity. And since circumcision is specifically called a sign and seal, while baptism is considered to be only a sign by Baptists, it would seem to be lesser in at least that particular sense. I know you do not agree that it is, but I wanted to know if I was clear on what you were saying.


----------



## Herald

Tim, well, our view of the discontinuity of the covenant is not the best kept secret in the baptism debate!


----------



## Austin

A few thoughts:

1) It seems that the 1st recorded instance of someone equating the sacraments of Circumcision & Baptism was the Apostle Paul: 

Colossians 2:11-14 -- "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." 

2) The difference in terminology between Baptists & Reformed Christians, while often overlooked, points us to a major part of our differences. That is, Reformed Christians have "Sacraments" while Baptists have "Ordinances." An ordinance is a law, something one does b/c it is commanded. Sacraments are "signs & seals," promises by God to do something which is a myserty (Gk, "musterion"), that is, something which we understand only in part which, though formerly not understood (e.g. Circumcision as a testimony to Christ's redemption) is now revealed (e.g. Baptism as the NT fulfillment of the OT sacramental promises), and which points to a miraculous work of God the HS. 

In other words, Baptists do not have sacraments. The Lord's Supper is a memorial. Period. We do it to remember Christ (note the nearly ubiquitous etching on Baptist communion tables), because He said so. Baptism is me obeying God's command to bear witness to what He & I have accomplished-- namely, my salvation. (After all, it points to my obedience to the Law by exercising faith. And never forget that to exercise faith is an act of obedience to the Law. [Interesting Master's thesis: "How does a Baptist view of baptism lead almost inevitably to Arminianism?"]) Baptism is therefore a sign, but not a seal. After all, the subtext of Baptist 'sacramentology' is not monergism, but cooperative grace. 

By contrast, Reformed Christians do indeed have sacraments. We resist the popish & Eastern errors which make it magical, but we embrace the mysterious nature of God's sovereign promises, and revel in the fact that He has made promises to us & to our children, and look with eager expectation to the fulfillment of the sacramental promises in our children. 

3) Yes, Reformed folk DO believe that our children are Christians. We believe that as those who share Abraham's faith (cf. Gal. ch. 3) we are sons & daughters of Abraham, citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, and heirs of the Covenants of Promise (cf. Eph. ch.2). As such, we inherit the Sacrament of Circumcision as reinterpreted into the Sacrament of Baptism (which signify & seal the same things to Covenant children). Therefore, we eagerly look for the salvation of our children as promised by God to the elect of every age. HOWEVER, we do not presume regeneration. Even in the OT there was no presumption of regeneration (though perhaps this is edging into an anachronistic argument). Rather, every Covenant child is commanded to obey, and Covenant parents are commanded to teach their children "the way that they ought to go, that even when they are old they will not depart from it." Deut 6 is therefore a command to Covenant parents. 

That said, there is the awful reality of Heb 6 & 10 hanging over all Covenant children who never exercise faith. 

4) I do not believe that a Baptist can be Covenantal in the same sense that a Reformed Christian can be. The views of the relationship between the OT & NT are too divergent. Reformed folks believe in the fundamental CONTINUITY between the 2 dispensations of the Covenant of Grace. Baptists believe in a fundamental DISCONTINUITY between them. Indeed, it seems that it is almost impossible for a Baptist to adhere to a bi-covenantal structure of redemptive history (i.e. works in Adam, grace in Christ). Rather, a tri-covenantal structure seems necessary (Pre-fall, OT, NT). After all, each of the "three" has its own 'sacraments,' its own laws, its own telos, and never the thrain shall meet. 

5) Consequently, there is no real correspondence (on a theological level) between a Baptist dedication and a Reformed baptism, at least as children are concerned. Indeed, due to the fact that Reformed folk have sacraments and Baptists have a sectarian rite, or ordinance, of baptism, I would say that the fundamental differences in ultimate theological significance of the two makes them quite distinct such that there is no correspondence. 

I'm sure that both sides would agree, however, that we DO have the same 'sacraments.' We each view the other as inadvertantly doing the right thing, however inconsistently. 

After all, does not the Reformed teaching that to neglect baptizing our children is a grave sin? And do not Baptists see the baptism of children as sadly errant? 

We have mutually exclusive views on the relationship between the testaments, the sacraments, ecclesiology (arising from these differences), and the place of children in God's economy. 

Sorry to be so long-winded, but that's my stab at addressing the OP. 

Shalom,


----------



## Austin

I can't believe that my post has gotten no responses! Please comment, or I'll feel soooo alone.


----------



## Augusta

Herald said:


> Tim, for the sake of context, thank you for pointing that out. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC considered the Pauline passages on the seal of the Spirit as indicating that it is the seal of the believer.



Are you saying here that it is the seal of the believer to himself of his salvation?


----------



## Austin

I'm saying it's a seal in two fashions: 

1) to the cosmos, it proclaims that the recipient belongs to Christ, just as it did in the OT era. It proclaims that the Lord has a propriety in this person, and therefore this person has a responsibility to obey Christ by trusting in Him. It also proclaims to the principalities & powers that this person is God's; therefore making that person a more especial subject of spiritual warfare-- both pro & con. 

2) to the believer (the Covenant child who exercises faith in obedience to God's law), it is a concrete testimony that before I knew the Lord, He knew me. Before I knew of my sin, He had provided for its removal. Apart from my good works (even faith) I have all the promises of the Covenant applied to me by Christ. 

Using these senses of the proclamation, the believer is able, like Luther, to say to the tempter, "Begone from me, for I am a baptized Christian." In other words, apart from my works, whether good or ill, I belong to Christ. Therefore I Jn 3 applies to me: "If my heart condemns me, God is greater than my heart & knows all things." Namely, He knows that I am not saved or accepted by my works, faith, regret, etc, but only and always through Christ. Baptism is an objective marker to the recipient that he belongs to Christ. And to the person who grows into the promise by exercising faith (however minuscule), it is an objective testimony that "nothing can separate me from the love of God."


----------

