# Is it right to not dogmatically hold to either?



## twogunfighter (May 14, 2004)

What really is the priority that we should put on this doctrine?? 

I have mentally assented to the paedo-baptist position although not dogmatically. It is not a conviction, just one has to pick a side if one really beleives that God has a standard here. I presumptively view my children as regenerate (at least I think I do as I understand presumptive regeneration). So what in scripture tells me that I [u:93a972b822]must[/u:93a972b822] baptize my infants? What's the big deal if I wait until they are 5-6? Am I in sin if I don't baptize my infants?

Just thinking in type/rambling. What do you dogmatists think?

Chuck


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

I am wondering that myself. To be consistent, wouldn't we see the command to circumcize as binding on all infants that we are head of? How else would we reconcile the command of the sign of the covenant, that &quot;we MUST&quot; do it?

This would also mean that the greater part of Christendom is committing the most greivous sins by not allowing them the sign and seal of righteousness. Could this be something to shed blood over? yikes... dogmatics are scary.

Rembrandt


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 14, 2004)

I am Paedo-baptist and I am convinced that for my Children to not be Baptized is sin. I base that on what I believe to be the command of scripture Gen. 17 and Col. 2. But I'm sure you have heard the arguments study those scriptures carefully and decide. I do believe at some point one has to decide. Baptism is not a trifling issue.


----------



## Saiph (May 14, 2004)

[quote:7b4318dbda]
Am I in sin if I don't baptize my infants? 

[/quote:7b4318dbda]

Yes.


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

Is it inconsistent to be convinced and believe in paedobaptism, and yet not be dogmatic about it?


----------



## twogunfighter (May 14, 2004)

IrishCat

Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins F7 of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 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. 

I may be confused but it seems that the context of this passage primarily speaks to &quot;circumcision made without hands.&quot;

Gen 17:7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.&quot; 9 And God said to Abraham: &quot;As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.&quot; 

So at what point after the infant is born are the parents who do not baptize in sin? Are we to take the eight days here literally? If we don't take the eight days here literally then by what standard do we judge that we have waited too long and are in sin? 

Mark

For the same reasons that IC has stated? Or do you base it on some other scripture?

Chuck


----------



## Preach (May 14, 2004)

On another thread, LOTW (I think it was him) mentioned the idea of degrees of certainty. There are certain doctrines, and beliefs in other given fields, that we (as individuals) are more certain about than others. The full divinity and humanity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, the ontological Trinity, etc. These are all core, high certainty, live and die beliefs. These beliefs, among others, define Christianity.
Yet, there are other beliefs (regarding the Church of Christ) that cause people to worship in different denominations, but not to break fellowship as children of God. Then there are beliefs (person relative) that you just don't have the same level of certainty about that you may be willing to give your life for. Example, if you have converted to paedobaptism (I have), you may not be as certain on this doctrine as you would the doctrine of the Trinity. So, what should you do regarding the way you live?
It seems to me that if you assent to a doctrine, and that doctrine is held to be true by the historic standards of Christianity (though not by all believers), then you are obligated to live those doctrines out in a day by day existence. So, if a husband and wife have children, their consciences obligate them to obey what they believe to be the Word of God. In this case, baptism. To not obey what you believe to be the truth of God would be sin (I qualify this by my above statement about the necessity to be in line with some historical creed or standards that are recognized by evangelicals).
These are just my thoughts. I hope they will provoke you to examine your level of certainty on other doctrines as well.
&quot;In Christ&quot;,
Bobby


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 14, 2004)

[quote:3002e398ae][i:3002e398ae]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:3002e398ae]
I have mentally assented to the paedo-baptist position although not dogmatically. It is not a conviction, just one has to pick a side if one really beleives that God has a standard here. I presumptively view my children as regenerate (at least I think I do as I understand presumptive regeneration). So what in scripture tells me that I [u:3002e398ae]must[/u:3002e398ae] baptize my infants? What's the big deal if I wait until they are 5-6? Am I in sin if I don't baptize my infants?
[/quote:3002e398ae]

If you are presuming them regenerate, then why would you withhold the sign of regeneration from them? Or is your concern more that they make their own profession of faith? And if so, how does baptizing them hinder that in any way?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 14, 2004)

Chuck,
The evidence of your faith is [i:a914c12d55]in[/i:a914c12d55] the placing of the sign upon your lovely children. More importantly, God has commanded that a sign be placed upon them identifying them with His promise.


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

Within 8 days?


----------



## LawrenceU (May 15, 2004)

Okay, no one shoot, please. . . But, the inference required in coming up with a standard such as this is one of the reasons that credobaptism makes much more sense to me. 



Taking cover now . . .


----------



## twogunfighter (May 17, 2004)

Scott


[quote:7cf3a0e404]
The evidence of your faith is in the placing of the sign upon your lovely children. [/quote:7cf3a0e404]

Is my faith also not shown by my catechizing them etc.? 

[quote:7cf3a0e404]
More importantly, God has commanded that a sign be placed upon them identifying them with His promise. 
[/quote:7cf3a0e404]

Ok then, what is the time standard that Biblically requires me to do it to my infant rather than when they turn six? 

Patrick

[quote:7cf3a0e404]
Or is your concern more that they make their own profession of faith?
[/quote:7cf3a0e404]

Here is my concern:

We can prove without a reasonable doubt (In my humble opinion):

1. All Christians are to be baptized.

2. All Christians are to make a profession of faith.

3. Children of Chrisitians can be assumed to be set apart for God and to receive a greater portion of grace than children of pagans. Although that grace is not necessarily salvific it is the norm that it is salvific. Acts 2:37-41, 1 Cor 7:12-14, Deut 6

4. Israel was God's visible chosen people before Christ, The church is God's current visible chosen people. The correlation between these two groups is real but not exact. Israel had a specific land, polity, nation-statehood, clearly delineated laws for all realms of life etc. The church has primarily moral and spiritual dominion and law although much practical living is also governed by God's law. 

5. Each chosen people has/had a sign that designated that they were a part of the covenant. Circumcision and baptism
are correlative but not exact mirror images of each other. No female circumcisions but female baptisms etc. 

6. Baptism does not carry with it salvific grace. 

Soooo.....We can say based on 1,2,4&amp;5 that all Christians must be baptized into the visible covenant. Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true, neither paedo-baptism (you must baptize infants) nor credo-baptism (as defined by you must [u:7cf3a0e404]only [/u:7cf3a0e404] baptize professors) are proven. Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true Presbyterians (as a rule) baptize infants then exclude them from the Lords table until they profess faith hoping that they don't apostacize either before or after. Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true Baptists refuse to baptize until a profession of faith prior to admitting persons to the visible covenant hoping that they don't apostacize after. I can see where each is able to practice their tradition but not where either can mandate based on scripture that others must follow or be in sin. 

I suppose my question is what grace is my child missing from birth to 4-6ish that can be proven from scripture to come strictly from baptism? 

Chuck


----------



## twogunfighter (May 17, 2004)

Pat 


[quote:b5d56b199f]
If you are presuming them regenerate,
[/quote:b5d56b199f]

By presuming I mean that I assume that they will become regenerate at some time if they are not now. I assume that God will save them therefore I take care to train them in righteousness. I act as though they are Christians.

Chuck


----------



## Augusta (May 17, 2004)

Two Gun, you have hit smack right exactly where I am at on this issue. I lean toward credo though because I do not like the fact that children can and do sometimes fall away and make to no effect God's effectual covenant of grace. I cannot reconcile this and so I marvel at all of these people who not only make this jump completely by inference not direct translation. I being in this place like TGF when I see that either a baptized infant or a not sincere teenager or adult can fall away the thing that tips the scales for me is putting God's sign on an unregenerate person with no confession of faith?? And based on a complicated, gymnastics, inferred, translation of scripture when we have spelled out &quot;believe and be baptized&quot; or &quot;confess and be baptized&quot; etc etc all over the place. The pressure to go paedo is only heightened by the fact that all of these great men of God practiced this forever. I just cannot reason it through. They must have been trapped in tradition as some have said or they just figured why confuse people, its not a point of salvation anyway...right?? aahhhhhhhhh!!!! I am tempted to just do both to have my bases covered. I cannot make a decision based on what the forefathers did alone. I have to see the connection and have it reason out completely. The scriptures have &quot;believe and be baptized&quot; so at this point I am confident that that will be honored by God and I don't believe that if my child dies without being baptized that they will go to hell if they are elect they are elect right?? This really bums me out. I have to read more and pray my guts out.


----------



## Preach (May 18, 2004)

Augusta, may I ask what books or articles that you have read regarding covenant theology? I was just curious if you have actually wrrestled through the purely Biblical argument for covenant theology (which of course includes believer's infant baptism)? May I suggest Randy Booth's book (and the tapes based on the book of the same title) &quot;Children of the Promise&quot;. It is a great and basic introduction for the layman. By the way, the tapes (which may be purchased at www.cmfnow.com) helped persuade me, and a number of other credo baptists I know to convert to paedo. u2u me if you would like to. Thanks brother.
&quot;In Christ&quot;,
Bobby


----------



## rembrandt (May 18, 2004)

[quote:6948fe29bc]I suppose my question is what grace is my child missing from birth to 4-6ish that can be proven from scripture to come strictly from baptism?[/quote:6948fe29bc]

I would like to second that question.

Is it because they are in covenant, therefore they are to be baptized? This is the question I ask myself: do we [b:6948fe29bc]have the right[/b:6948fe29bc] to with-hold the visible sign and seal from a covenant child?
How would this effect the child though? I assume that it is more of an obligation upon us to follow through with commands to baptize the church.

Rembrandt


----------



## twogunfighter (May 20, 2004)

[quote:3d67071efa]
I suppose my question is what grace is my child missing from birth to 4-6ish that can be proven from scripture to come strictly from baptism? 
[/quote:3d67071efa]

Is this a foolish question? Are there other threads or books that deal with the argument between baptism as a means of grace and baptism as a symbol?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 20, 2004)

[quote:48b7b7c15b][i:48b7b7c15b]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:48b7b7c15b]
[quote:48b7b7c15b]
I suppose my question is what grace is my child missing from birth to 4-6ish that can be proven from scripture to come strictly from baptism? 
[/quote:48b7b7c15b]

Is this a foolish question? Are there other threads or books that deal with the argument between baptism as a means of grace and baptism as a symbol? [/quote:48b7b7c15b]
You know Chuck, the same question could be asked about cricumcision. What benefit does a child recieve from it? Well, he has a physical marker on his body, always testifying to who he is and whom his covenant God is. Bound to it are all the covenantal obligations and promises to which he is raised under and expected to take upon himself. Baptism does the same for our children. It's the mark of God's people and so tied to it is a constant testimony to the child of who his covenant God is and what that God expects from him. If the child doesn't recieve the sign, then he doesn't have this means to reflect upon. The mark seperates him from the pagan world to be raised in the family of God. Does this mean that children won't be saved without it? Certainly not. God remains faithful to His own despite the sins of the parents in this regard (assuming the peado position is true so please no super-sensitive Baptist remarks). We raise our children under the benefits of the covenant (Romans 9:1-6) because they are part of the covenant. It's inconsistent to raise them under the covenant privileges and yet withold the mark of covenant inclusion. :wr50:


----------



## wsw201 (May 20, 2004)

[quote:101b3e88e8]
Here is my concern: 

We can prove without a reasonable doubt (In my humble opinion): 

1. All Christians are to be baptized. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

True. Baptism like circumcision is an initiatory right into the visible church. All Christians are baptized based on the command of God (Matt 28:28) and the promise of God (Acts 2:39).


[quote:101b3e88e8]
2. All Christians are to make a profession of faith. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

True, all Christians are to make a profession of faith. Regarding infants, they are baptized based on the profession of one believing parent. (1 Cor 7:14). When a child comes to an age where they can discern the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they will also make a public profession of faith.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
3. Children of Chrisitians can be assumed to be set apart for God and to receive a greater portion of grace than children of pagans. Although that grace is not necessarily salvific it is the norm that it is salvific. Acts 2:37-41, 1 Cor 7:12-14, Deut 6 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

Children are not "assumed" to be "set apart" they "are" set apart based on the fact that they are born into a family of at least one believing parent (1 Cor 7:14). Therefore they are born into the commonwealth of the visible church and are considered and treated as any other member of Christ's Church. The grace imparted to the child may or may not be salvific but they are certainly apart of the Kingdom of Christ out of which there is no ordinary means of salvation (Acts 2:47).


[quote:101b3e88e8]
4. Israel was God's visible chosen people before Christ, The church is God's current visible chosen people. The correlation between these two groups is real but not exact. Israel had a specific land, polity, nation-statheood, clearly delineated laws for all realms of life etc. The church has primarily moral and spiritual dominion and law although much practical living is also governed by God's law. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

This is basically true.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
5. Each chosen people has/had a sign that designated that they were a part of the covenant. Circumcision and baptism 
are correlative but not exact mirror images of each other. No female circumcisions but female baptisms etc. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

True.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
6. Baptism does not carry with it salvific grace. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

True. Neither Presbyterian or Baptist believe in baptismal regeneration.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
Soooo.....We can say based on 1,2,4&amp;5 that all Christians must be baptized into the visible covenant. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

True.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true, neither paedo-baptism (you must baptize infants) nor credo-baptism (as defined by you must only baptize professors) are proven. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

Would disagree. Since 3 is true, there is no reason to deny the sign to infants. Two things to remember regarding who is to be baptized, 1) both Presbyterian's and Baptist agree that adults and those who are capable of making a credible profession of faith must do so prior to baptism. The real issue concerns infants. 2) Presbyterian's and Baptist view the Sacrament of Baptism totally different (Baptist refer to Baptism as an ordinance while Presbyterian's refer to it as a Sacrament, ie; mystery). Presbyterian's baptize based on the command and promise of God and view baptism, especially regarding infants, as a passive sacrament in that Baptism represent regeneration a passive activity on the part of the recipient. Baptists view the Baptism as an active ordinance, which reflects the person's obedience and faith toward God.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true Presbyterians (as a rule) baptize infants then exclude them from the Lords table until they profess faith hoping that they don't apostacize either before or after. Since 3,4,5&amp;6 are true Baptists refuse to baptize until a profession of faith prior to admitting persons to the visible covenant hoping that they don't apostacize after. I can see where each is able to practice their tradition but not where either can mandate based on scripture that others must follow or be in sin. 
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

Whether Baptist or Presbyterian, both, I believe, would argue that it would be a sin not to be baptized as both see baptism as a command of God. Not to follow a command of God would be sin.


[quote:101b3e88e8]
I suppose my question is what grace is my child missing from birth to 4-6ish that can be proven from scripture to come strictly from baptism?
[/quote:101b3e88e8]

It depends on your view of the Church. Baptism, as I noted before is, among other things, an initiatory right into Christ's Church, the Kingdom of Christ. To be apart of the Body of Christ is a high honor and privilege and should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately today most Christians have such a low view of Christ's Church that being a member is no different than being in the Rotary Club.


----------



## twogunfighter (May 20, 2004)

WSW

I appreciate you taking the time to answer. These are my ponderings. 

[quote:2b56bbd3ef]
Children are not "assumed" to be "set apart" they "are" set apart
[/quote:2b56bbd3ef]

Agreed; my mistake.

[quote:2b56bbd3ef]
Presbyterian's baptize based on the command and promise of God and view baptism, especially regarding infants, as a passive sacrament in that Baptism represent regeneration a passive activity on the part of the recipient. Baptists view the Baptism as an active ordinance, which reflects the person's obedience and faith toward God.
[/quote:2b56bbd3ef]

So neither see any real actual extra grace being imparted to the individual as a result of baptism compared to not having baptism? This seems different than what WCF 28.6 is saying. 

[quote:2b56bbd3ef]
It depends on your view of the Church. Baptism, as I noted before is, among other things, an initiatory right into Christ's Church, the Kingdom of Christ. To be apart of the Body of Christ is a high honor and privilege and should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately today most Christians have such a low view of Christ's Church that being a member is no different than being in the Rotary Club. 
[/quote:2b56bbd3ef]

Are you saying that the real grace of baptism is that it allows one to be a roll listed member of a church? So the extra grace that my kid could have over Phillip's is that she is listed on the church rolls? I am sure that Baptist kids go to sunday school, listen to sermons etc. which leaves the main difference as whether ones name is officially on the rolls or not. I would have thought that this grace imparted by baptism would have been a bit more mystical than that. 


[quote:2b56bbd3ef]
WCF 28:VI. [u:2b56bbd3ef]The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminis[/u:2b56bbd3ef]tered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the [u:2b56bbd3ef]grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time[/u:2b56bbd3ef].[17]
[/quote:2b56bbd3ef] 

Since the efficacy is not tied to the moment in time when administered this would mitigate against the idea the you [u:2b56bbd3ef]must [/u:2b56bbd3ef]baptize infants. This would also suggest that regardless the timing of the baptism the grace promised will be conferred if it is God's will. 

Patrick

Thanks for your remarks. Particularly the last couple of sentences will make me think. 


Chuck


----------



## wsw201 (May 20, 2004)

[quote:7cc823641a]
So neither see any real actual extra grace being imparted to the individual as a result of baptism compared to not having baptism? This seems different than what WCF 28.6 is saying. 
[/quote:7cc823641a]

I am not quite sure what you mean by "any real actual extra grace". Would you be looking for something specific? The means of grace that God has given to His Church are the Word and Sacraments, which are made effectual for believers by the Holy Spirit. 

Regarding WCF 28.6 Actually it isn't different. Baptism has historically been described as "an outward sign of an inward grace". It is God in His own time that will make the Sacrament of Baptism (the outward sign) effectual to the believer (the inward grace of regeneration). This could happen before, during or after baptism. But then again the purpose of the Sacraments are to bolster one's faith, they do not impart faith.


[quote:7cc823641a]
Are you saying that the real grace of baptism is that it allows one to be a roll listed member of a church? So the extra grace that my kid could have over Phillip's is that she is listed on the church rolls? I am sure that Baptist kids go to sunday school, listen to sermons etc. which leaves the main difference as whether ones name is officially on the rolls or not. I would have thought that this grace imparted by baptism would have been a bit more mystical than that. 
[/quote:7cc823641a]

Being a member of Christ's Church is no small matter. There are obligations on the part of members towards the Church and on the part of the Church towards its members. To be a member of the Church is to be the "called" of God, called to be saints. As far as any mysticism is concerned, I'm not quite sure what you would expect. I know the Charismatics have the "second baptism" and will speak in tongues, but I assume you are not talking about that.


[quote:7cc823641a]
Since the efficacy is not tied to the moment in time when administered this would mitigate against the idea the you must baptize infants. This would also suggest that regardless the timing of the baptism the grace promised will be conferred if it is God's will.
[/quote:7cc823641a]

Could it be God's will that an infant be regenerated? If so then why not give the child the sign? Besides, Presbyterian's do not Baptize based on the timing of the grace promised (and I would think the Baptists would agree), but on the command of God.


----------



## twogunfighter (May 21, 2004)

Wayne

[quote:06908932bb]
Being a member of Christ's Church is no small matter. There are obligations on the part of members towards the Church and on the part of the Church towards its members. To be a member of the Church is to be the "called" of God, called to be saints. As far as any mysticism is concerned, I'm not quite sure what you would expect. I know the Charismatics have the "second baptism" and will speak in tongues, but I assume you are not talking about that. 
[/quote:06908932bb]

I am not talking about any second baptism, filling or anointing or such thing. I am saying that from birth to 6ish the same things happen to my kid as happens to a Baptist's kid at church: Sunday School, nursery, preaching, Christian parents, prayer, sermons. The difference is that if my kid is baptized in infancy he is put on the church rolls; the baptist's kid is not. So I would suggest that both take part equally in the graces imparted by the church. Are you saying that the Baptist's kid is not &quot;called of God&quot; because he has not been baptized? Is he somehow less obligated to live in God's special (special by virtue of being born to Christian Parents) graciousness than my kid because he did not get baptized at 2-4 months?

[quote:06908932bb]
Could it be God's will that an infant be regenerated? If so then why not give the child the sign? [/quote:06908932bb]

Yes it certainly could be that an infant be regenerated and I certainly don't see why an infant or child of Christian parents should not be baptized at 2 months, 2 years or 8 years. The question is what requires it to be at the earliest time possible? The confession says that baptism and the efficacious grace of that baptism are not married to a certain moment in time. Therefore unless you can prove from the Bible that as a result of a child being a roll residing member of a church he receives more grace than a child that does all the same things but is not on the rolls, then the case for baptizing 2 month olds is no stronger than the case for baptizing 8 year olds. They don't even get to participate in communion until they profess faith so the Baptist's kid that professes faith at 5 is baptized and immediately is able to take communion may be actually receiving more grace than a Presbyterian's kid who professes at 8. Where is the time standard that forces the issue at or prior to a certain age. 


[quote:06908932bb]
Besides, Presbyterian's do not Baptize based on the timing of the grace promised (and I would think the Baptists would agree), but on the command of God.
[/quote:06908932bb]

Where is the command of God that [u:06908932bb]requires[/u:06908932bb] that an infant be baptized? If it is the circumcision command in Gen 17, and there is that much equivalency between circumcision and baptism such that the command to circumcise on the eighth day applies to baptism then why doesn't the church also require baptism on the eigth day as well? 

It is certainly possible that I am just being obstinate. I really want to be fully reformed I just can't see the requirement for infant baptism although I aggree with the rest of the confession.

Chuck


----------



## wsw201 (May 21, 2004)

Chuck,


[quote:7c1abf4485]
I am not talking about any second baptism, filling or anointing or such thing. I am saying that from birth to 6ish the same things happen to my kid as happens to a Baptist's kid at church: Sunday School, nursery, preaching, Christian parents, prayer, sermons. The difference is that if my kid is baptized in infancy he is put on the church rolls; the baptist's kid is not. So I would suggest that both take part equally in the graces imparted by the church. Are you saying that the Baptist's kid is not &quot;called of God&quot; because he has not been baptized? Is he somehow less obligated to live in God's special (special by virtue of being born to Christian Parents) graciousness than my kid because he did not get baptized at 2-4 months? 
[/quote:7c1abf4485]

The difference between the Presbyterian kid and the Baptist kid is how Christ's Church views them. Yes, they both go to church and Sunday school and have Christian parents (of course the Baptist child does not receive the "grace" of Baptism). But the Presbyterian child is considered a Christian, because they are born into the Church, while the Baptist child is not. The Baptist child is considered as an unbeliever (though they do not treat them as such, ie; Matt 18) as they wait for evidence of regeneration (a profession of faith) and would not be considered the "called of God" until they make a profession. The Presbyterian child is born into the visible Church of Christ and all those who are in the visible church are baptized, infant or adult. 

(One caveat, I'm not a Baptist so if anything I have said regarding how Baptists view un-baptized children is incorrect, I hope my Baptist brethren will make appropriate corrections.)


[quote:7c1abf4485]
Yes it certainly could be that an infant be regenerated and I certainly don't see why an infant or child of Christian parents should not be baptized at 2 months, 2 years or 8 years. The question is what requires it to be at the earliest time possible? 
[/quote:7c1abf4485]

This again goes back to the fact that children of believing parents are born into the visible church and deserve the visible sign of entrance, baptism.


[quote:7c1abf4485]
The confession says that baptism and the efficacious grace of that baptism are not married to a certain moment in time. Therefore unless you can prove from the Bible that as a result of a child being a roll residing member of a church he receives more grace than a child that does all the same things but is not on the rolls, then the case for baptizing 2 month olds is no stronger than the case for baptizing 8 year olds. They don't even get to participate in communion until they profess faith so the Baptist's kid that professes faith at 5 is baptized and immediately is able to take communion may be actually receiving more grace than a Presbyterian's kid who professes at 8. 
[/quote:7c1abf4485]

Again, this goes back to how children are viewed by the Church. Should they be viewed as Christians or as unbelievers? Is there "more grace" for those who are considered Christians or for unbelievers? As far as communion is concerned, the rule of life and faith for the Church and all Christians is Scripture. Scripture states that one must be able to discern the Body and Blood of Christ in order to worthily partake of the Lord's Supper. Obviously, an infant is not capable of discerning Christ in the Supper. Therefore, the Presbyterian child, as they improve upon their Baptism, will wait till they come to an age in which they are able to discern and make a profession. 


[quote:7c1abf4485]
Where is the command of God that requires that an infant be baptized? If it is the circumcision command in Gen 17, and there is that much equivalency between circumcision and baptism such that the command to circumcise on the eighth day applies to baptism then why doesn't the church also require baptism on the eigth day as well?
[/quote:7c1abf4485]

There is no specific chapter and verse saying "go out and baptize babies". But the Church has always been and always will be and God has established a sign of entrance into His Church. The sign for the Church in the OT was circumcision and under the NT, Baptism. Both signs point to the same thing (Col 2). The only thing that has changed is the administration of the sign. We can point to scripture and note that the sign was given to infants in the OT Church and there is nothing regarding the NT Church, which states that the sign should no longer be given to children. 


[quote:7c1abf4485]
It is certainly possible that I am just being obstinate. I really want to be fully reformed I just can't see the requirement for infant baptism although I agree with the rest of the confession.
[/quote:7c1abf4485]

I don't think you are being obstinate. This is not a no brainer issue. Look at all the threads that have been posted on Baptism. You are not alone in trying to discern the truth of the matter. Look at how long it took Matt to come around!


----------



## twogunfighter (May 24, 2004)

Wayne

I hear you but I think that we may be talking past each other. I am going to have a chat with a non-virtual elder this week about this as a result of a book study that I am doing with him. It seems that many PCA elders do not take quite as tough a position as the confession does on this issue which is strange to me and causes some practical difficulty when your kids get to be 4-6 and begin to profess Christ but haven't been baptized. 

Chuck


----------



## wsw201 (May 24, 2004)

[quote:e07e8d6278][i:e07e8d6278]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:e07e8d6278]
Wayne

I hear you but I think that we may be talking past each other. I am going to have a chat with a non-virtual elder this week about this as a result of a book study that I am doing with him. It seems that many PCA elders do not take quite as tough a position as the confession does on this issue which is strange to me and causes some practical difficulty when your kids get to be 4-6 and begin to profess Christ but haven't been baptized. 

Chuck [/quote:e07e8d6278]

I hear ya and unfortunately know exactly what you mean.


----------

