Paedo-Baptism Answers Does "baptism" mean water baptism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm currently a credobaptist seeking to better understand paedobaptism. One big issue that led me away from paedobaptism is how Paul says things of the baptized that cannot be said of unbelievers:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death ... " (Rom. 6:3,4)

"In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26, 27)

"In him you also were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col. 2:11, 12)


Paul seems to say that all who were baptized participate in vital, saving union with Christ--not just a prospective union. While of course some outwardly baptized with water will prove not to be baptized with the Spirit (we cannot see the heart and only look outwardly), this led me to see that Paul views baptism and saving faith as equivalents, whose membership are one-for-one. He doesn't make room for those who are water-baptized outwardly but don't participate in the inward reality. The only way I could explain this was that baptism assumes faith for its validity; only believers (or at least outward professors) were baptized in the NT, thus invalidating the baptism of infants or children who hadn't yet made a confession of faith. How could Paul say of an unregenerate child is buried with Christ and raised with him, clothed with Christ, etc.?

As I've tried thinking through this stuff, the only way I can make sense of these passages is that paedobaptists must mean Spirit-baptism is in view here, of which water baptism is the sign. In the language of WCF 27:2, Paul is using language of the sign (water baptism) to actually mean the thing signified (Spirit union with Christ). But that in no way appears evident in the text, and I question whether these churches to whom Paul wrote would have grasped that sacramental language. Is this a matter of the sign being used to refer to the substance, or is there some other means of sacramental efficacy at work here by which water baptism actually effects vital union with Christ?

Thanks for any clarification on how these texts work from a paedobaptist perspective! (And FYI, I plan to make a similar post in the credo-baptism answers forum about how Baptists account for the fact that baptism appears to enact union with Christ, while avoiding the necessity of baptism for salvation or falling into some kind of sacerdotalism.)
 
A knowledgeable, confessing Presbyterian or Reformed (P&R) believer--on the subject of baptism--agrees that the sign and the thing signified belong together. Baptism is a replete symbol, similar to circumcision (its OT analogue), and it carries quite a bit of freight. Among baptism's symbolic referents is the promise of the believer's union with Christ. Baptism (sign) belongs, in the final analysis, to those who have the union (thing signified).

Union with Christ is a spiritual work, done in the secret place by the Holy Spirit, and it's not visible. Therefore, there's no possibility in this world of baptism performed by human ministers being applied to anyone on the basis of union with Christ. "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart," 1Sam.16:7.

The issue of a spiritual basis doesn't disappear, if you replace "union" with "faith." A substantive, saving faith is no more visible than union with Christ.

As a Baptist, you may describe your practice of profession-then-baptism as baptism on the basis of faith, but what you're actually doing is descriptive of nothing but stipulating criteria. That's fine, because the Presbyterian or Reformed person also stipulates criteria. In the case of adult-convert baptism, the criteria we use isn't far removed from a very basic Baptist standard, especially this: a credible profession of faith. According to our Confession it is prerequisite that this criteria be present prior to that subject's baptism.

Criteria, however, are not a "basis." A "basis" for baptism is something along the lines of: Jesus instituting baptism for the church, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. Scripture is the basis, insofar as it prescribes the element (water) to be used, the words or name invoked in the process, who are the proper subjects, when baptism should be administered, and by whom it should be administered. Scripture is to be sought into, for the development of a theology of baptism (a subset of sacramentology, a subset of ecclesiology); and on that basis baptism has an existence.

Jesus and Scripture set out various criteria for baptism. Jesus, covenant (NewCovenant), and Scripture are the basis--not the criteria determined from Scripture.

Validity. A "valid" baptism is one that meets biblical criteria. Here is another parting-of-the-ways. According to the WCF and the 3FU, a baptism once administered by a properly ordained minister, according to all biblical prescriptions, is objectively and most definitely "valid." The intent of the church was to baptize, and it was the subject's professed intent (or the parents' presenting their covenant child) to receive baptism. Ergo, a baptism in fact is carried out.

To the confessional Presbyterian or Reformed mind, there is no dependency for "validity" in this baptism upon the absolute truth of profession, or absence of delusion, on the part of the subject. If, in spite of a good-faith effort to determine the credibility/sincerity of the convert's profession, a person with less-than saving faith is baptized, he's still baptized. Because, in our view his faith can still align (given time and commitment to attending the preaching of the Word and the other means-of-grace) with the sign, though it happen in reverse order.

And this is exactly what we expect should happen, ordinarily, in the case of covenant children. Parents believe the promises of God, and also they diligently attend (and bring their child) to the means-of-grace, so that the preaching of the Word might have its expected effect starting with the germination of faith and growing it; along with the strengthening of that faith by the due use of the sacraments. To the end, that the whole church should grow up into Him (Eph.4:15), grow in grace (2Pet.3:18), and persevere to the end (Mk.13:3).

We use the term "efficacy" to describe the work of baptism. Because we aren't baptismal-regenerationists, we don't believe the sacrament creates faith. Sacraments (including baptism) are for the building up and strengthening of faith. Sacraments, in other words, are faith-dependent. So, we don't believe the "efficacy" of baptism is tied to the moment of administration of it. But, in God's good timing, for the person who in whom the Spirit works faith (repentance, union with Christ, and all the other benefits of redemption), he will be blessed by the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism.

God will apply his "grace of baptism" (WLC 167) irrespective of the timing of its administration, to all unto whom that grace belongs (WCF.28:6) i.e. the elect in his appointed time. Grace is the thing signified; it isn't the minister's purview. He is only responsible for the sign. The minister is concerned with earthly "validity," God takes care of baptism's eternal "validity."

Who is Paul writing to? Paul is writing to entire churches. Paul is aware that even in the 1C church, there are false-professions. Yet, he speaks indiscriminately. No unregenerate person is "buried with Christ and raised with him, clothed with Christ, etc." And yet, Paul speaks at times without bothering to qualify his church-wide comments.

You discriminate, however, when you single out the "unregenerate child." Why? In your mind, are all children, or infants specifically, unregenerate? That's at least one fair interpretation of your choice of words. Are most children of the church unregenerate? Again, why do you think so? You may have a good reason to think so, it just isn't apparent from what you've written.

Are you anxious to see children of professing Christians making their own profession? That certainly is our (P&R) desire; we call that the "public profession of faith;" or some call it "confirmation." Or, are you anxious to see children of professing Christians have a "crisis moment?" In American Christianity, in "evangelicalism" the standard approach seems to be the need to see the children in the home, or the church, or the school, or the summer camp, or the spiritual emphasis week, or whenever--but they need a "come to Jesus" moment, they need a "conversion story."

Should a child grow up hearing the gospel week-in and week-out, watching his parents and his church community hearing the Word together and together living out their faith, and gradually be subsumed into that "culture" and believe what the people around him believe, never (to his awareness) believing otherwise? When did this person "become regenerate?" Is it even possible to know? When was Paul writing to this person? Only after his public profession of faith? When was the preaching of the Word having a saving effect? Could it have begun almost as soon as he could understand words? Why not?

Whenever God brought faith to life in that child, even when it was a tiny sprout of new life probably not visible to anyone, he was regenerated at that time, buried/raised with Christ and all the rest. His knowledge and appreciation grew over time. But Scripture doesn't talk about faith as requiring a "certain minimum" of content before it's' real. Only that it is lodged in the correct Person.

Seems to me, a little child should start to appreciate the Word is for him, and the preaching is for him, right away. Not, well first, you need to cross this threshold, and then you may start appropriating those terms. We don't know when and how the "Spirit moves as he wills," on any particular person; only that the Spirit is promised to accompany the gospel proclaimed in the church.

Paul is writing to the church, which is invariably mixed in the nature of the case, life in this present world. He writes to the church as it ought to be, though it is typically not even at its best. The sign and the thing signified belong together, but we can't always sort out when the alignment is "off." A P&R pastor or parent can tell a truant covenant child, "Your baptism says one thing about you, but your behavior is reflective of one who knows little to nothing of Christ." I don't have to wait until the public profession or the "crisis" to start telling a child in Christ's church, "Start acting like a Christian."


Nothing of your position is surprising to me. I am not bothered or offended by it. My statements and questions are not intended to be assertive or pugnacious. You're questions I take as sincere. However, in order to understand how we differ, you need to grasp how a P&R person looks at the same data you may be looking at, but sees it in his own light. I hope these thoughts are helpful to that end.
 
I always enjoy reading the way Bruce turns phrases and gives a rich description of our theology. I'd like to offer my own perspective.

One thing I think you need to ask yourself is this: How did you get past all the other Chapters in the WCF and then get caught short on the subjects of baptism? I ask that because there is a theological progression that goes something like this:

1. The Scriptures are the Word of God.
2. The Word of God reveals a Triune God Who is altogether higher than us and we would have no fruition with Him unless He condescended to mankind by way of Covenant.
3. The first Covenant was a Covenant of Works where man was naturally able to believe and obey God.
4. Man fell and, with him all of mankind into an estate of sin and misery making him not only guilty but utterly unable to obey God's Law - infact He is hostile to it.
5. God made another Covenant of Grace.
6. Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace.
7. God made the CoG with Christ and, in Him, all of the elecct.
8. As Mediator, Christ fulfills the offices of Prophet, Priest, and Kind.
9. All evangelical graces for the believer come from their union with Chrsit, the Mediator.
10. Believers of all times have been saved, in substance, by this One Mediator.

The Confession then really unpacks the different headings of our salvation that are all fruits or evangelical graces that flow from our Mediator: faith, justification, sanctification, good works, etc.

It then gets to the issue of the Church and the Sacraments and the visible signs and seals that Christ (remember, the Mediator from which all evanglical graces flow) has instituted for His Church.

Before you got to the question of the subjects of baptism itself you ought to settle in your mind what these things that we call Sacraments are.

What you've put your finger on is that there has to be more going on than someone being physically baptized. A typical prooftext for Baptists calling baptism a "watery grave" is Romans 6:1-11 but the "burying" in view here is due to the vital union between the one united to Christ, the Mediator. We are said to die to the power of sin (the flesh) and have risen again united to His indestructible life. Paul uses the word "baptized" to describe that solidarity.

It is not an accident that the word that is used the describe the rite of initiation is likewise spoken of as something that happens to us by virtue of our union with Christ.

This is what the WCF means that there is a Sacramental Union between the sign (a water baptism) and the thing signified (I am united to Christ in His death and resurrection). They can be distinguished but they are Sacramentally related. It is the Spirit Who confers the "seal" (union with Christ) so that the believer can remember the "sign" (his baptism) and be assured that he is united to Christ because he has been baptized.

Notice that the same operative sign/seal paradigm is operative in the Lord's Supper. We eat bread and drink wine but we are said to be at the table of the Lord and to receive spiritual nourishment from him. Again, it is the Spirit's work.

If you see this principle in place then you need to go back and read the OT where the same sign/seal relationship is present with circumcision.

If you read carefully you could conclude what you have tried to conclude with baptism. You might say: "I notice that the Scriptures repeatedly refer to circumcision in such a way that the person is truly regenerate. Therefore, circumcision ought to be administered only to those who had faith."

You've accurately surmised the reality of Scriptural signs/seals about baptism and circumcision. What you've failed to apprehend is that the Scriptures don't make the apparent evidence of faith (a profession) as the basis for whether or not a person is to receive the sign of entry into the Covenant of Grace (that which signifies union with Christ).

Did you notice that I earlier pointed out that our Confession states that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all of the elect?

Does that surprise you to read that our Confession does not believe that a reprobate can be, in substance, in the Covenant of Grace? They cannot because to be in the Covenant of Grace is to be in Christ.

You make a typical move of logic (not warranted by the Scripture) and say: "Yes, that is why I don't think we should be baptizing babies because they are not in Christ."

I responds: Whom do you know or whom does the Church know that is in Christ?

The answer is nobody. We don't know who is elect. If the basis for baptism is that we baptize the elect only then we baptize no one.

The Baptist will then make a move that is nowhere taught in Scripture: "OK, I'll concede I don't know if anyone is elect but we have profession and that is the most accurate means we know that a person is elect and that is why I seethe Church baptizing those who profess faith in Christ."

We do see the Apostles baptizing those who profess faith in Christ but nowhere do the Scriptures tie the baptism to the idea that the Apostles are trying to ensure that they baptize the elect alone."

Do you understand the difference? It is one thing to see that adult converts are indeed baptized but no Apostle ever uses profession as some soft of "guard rail" to protect baptism from being administered to the potentially reprobate.

In fact, what do we see? Much like we see today. Church members involved in backbiting, confusion, strife, shrinking away from the faith, etc. The response is "some of you were never really regenerate and never really baptized but some of you are elect." The reason is that the Church is not the Mediator and it is not the Spirit and it is the Churches job not to try to affirm whom it believes are regenerate but to proclaim Christ through the Word and to build up those in the Chhurches through the Sacraments and leave the role of sorting out the elect from the reprobate to the Holy Spirit.

Read Hebrews and you see a pattern that goes something like this: you people are in the Church and you need to press in. You need to stop shrinking back. Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts. That's the cry of the Church every week. It hopes for the best fro all who are members of the Church and it calls them, Today, to believe on Christ. Today might be the day that a 70-year-old man who was baptized 50 years ago was actually converted by the Word of God and had his eyes opened by the Spirit. We might have never known it. Conversely, that person you are absolutely sure is walking with the Lord may sitill be unregernate. I've seen elders apostasize from the faith.

Baptism is not a sign for the party to be affirmed in what the Church believes he already must surely possess. Baptism, as instituted by Christ, is the iniitiation into the Church where the aim of being discipled is to grow people in grace and, often, convert for the first time. It doesn't mean that we just baptize willy nilly but neither do we baptize with any sure notion that the person is in Christ. We hope a person is in Christ but the aim of the communion of the Saints is the formation and upbuilding of faith.

Why are infants baptized? Because like all who are in the visible communion of the Saitnts, they are to be discipled. Baptism is not the end of the process of a dsiciple where he presents himself to the Church and the Church says: "You are regenerate, be baptized." It is the rite of initation. Matt 28:18-20 does not read: "Teach them everything I have commanded you and then baptize them." A person is discipled by being baptized and then taught what Jesus has commanded.

Lots to consume here. Think about what I wrote and then ask follow-up questions.
 
It is not an accident that the word that is used the describe the rite of initiation is likewise spoken of as something that happens to us by virtue of our union with Christ.

This is what the WCF means that there is a Sacramental Union between the sign (a water baptism) and the thing signified (I am united to Christ in His death and resurrection). They can be distinguished but they are Sacramentally related. It is the Spirit Who confers the "seal" (union with Christ) so that the believer can remember the "sign" (his baptism) and be assured that he is united to Christ because he has been baptized.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. My questions are (a) Would this sign-for-reality wordplay have been picked up by Paul's audience? Did they (esp. considering many were Gentiles) have in place a sacramental, covenantal view that would've picked up on this relation? (b) How is this view exegetically derived from Scripture? That is, how is it derived that "baptism" doesn't mean the rite itself but really "vital union with Christ" signified by the rite?

I'm still struggling with how Paul could speak of the rite of baptism effecting a vital union with Christ in such a way that all who are baptized are in this union by faith (Rom 6:3-5, Gal 3:26-29, Col 2:11-14). This has made sense to me if all who converted and professed faith and repentance were then baptized as their formal identification with Christ and his church. In this sense, baptism is seen as the summary or conclusion of conversion and can stand by metonymy for conversion to Christ. This makes baptism in these texts still really mean water baptism but stand for a process effected by the Spirit through the gospel. (I think Douglas Moo says something similar.) But now that I think about this, it's still baptism-stands-for-invisible-union, which I guess isn't really anything different than WCF 27:2. Hmm.... not sure where to go from here.
 
You discriminate, however, when you single out the "unregenerate child." Why? In your mind, are all children, or infants specifically, unregenerate? That's at least one fair interpretation of your choice of words. Are most children of the church unregenerate? Again, why do you think so? You may have a good reason to think so, it just isn't apparent from what you've written.

Are you anxious to see children of professing Christians making their own profession? That certainly is our (P&R) desire; we call that the "public profession of faith;" or some call it "confirmation." Or, are you anxious to see children of professing Christians have a "crisis moment?" In American Christianity, in "evangelicalism" the standard approach seems to be the need to see the children in the home, or the church, or the school, or the summer camp, or the spiritual emphasis week, or whenever--but they need a "come to Jesus" moment, they need a "conversion story."

Thanks for the in-depth response! To address your question, on the basis of Ephesians 2:1-3 I assume all children are born in Adam and in a sinful nature and are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Because effectual calling and regeneration occur at a specific point in time (cf. WCF 11:4), and the vast majority of someone's life is after their birth, then I assume regeneration and physical birth do not normally coincide. Hence believers' children are born unregenerate.

I am anxious (read: eager) to see our children grow up to see their own need for Christ and his rescue from sin. I don't think a crisis moment is necessary, though at some point I don't think we can really see Jesus as savior if we don't see ourselves in need of saving under God's law. That will look different for different people, but there has to come the point where a person reckons with himself as a sinner before God, and then sees the cross of Christ as his rescue and hope. I pray my kids (age 8, 5, and 10 mo.) will grow up with the faith as the air they breathe, and that they don't need some late-in-life radical conversion as a prodigal son who wandered off. That is to wish they would live in sin and unbelief for years so that it takes hold on them, and I don't want that.
 
You would acknowledge that unregenerate people confess Christ and receive believer’s baptism. The same applies to covenant children. If the person is regenerate, those statements are fully true of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
(a) Would this sign-for-reality wordplay have been picked up by Paul's audience? Did they (esp. considering many were Gentiles) have in place a sacramental, covenantal view that would've picked up on this relation?
I'm wondering if you've answered your own question. When the Scriptures command a person to be baptized and then Paul (and others) speak about baptism as meaning something deeper than merely getting wet then it's not "word-play". It's paying attention to the Apostle. One is left to either choose an un-Biblical "working of the works" where the water baptism effects what Paul reveals it signifies (Roman Catholics, LUtherans, Campbellites, etc) or you have to account for the sign/reality in a different way. The bottom line is that the most common way Paul refers to believers is "in Christ" and union with Christ is the operating motif. Baptism is clearly a visible rite of entry but is also connected in the Scriptures to union. So, yes, disciples would have "picked up" on the sign/reality connection.

By the way, you didn't interact with any of the Mediator and Covenant theology. You're still trying to decide subjects of Baptism without settling the role of Christ in all of this.

(b) How is this view exegetically derived from Scripture? That is, how is it derived that "baptism" doesn't mean the rite itself but really "vital union with Christ" signified by the rite?
I didn't write that baptism is not the rite itself but that it is used to describe both the initiatory rite as well as that which is spiritually signified. It's not one or the other but both-and.

Here's the BDAG tthat gives a sense of the semantic use in the NT and early Greek literature:

βαπτίζω fut. βαπτίσω; 1 aor. ἐβάπτισα. Mid.: ἐβαπτισάμην. Pass.: impf. ἐβαπτιζόμην; fut. βαπτισθήσομαι; 1 aor. ἐβαπτίσθην; pf. ptc. βεβαπτισμένος (Hippocr., Pla., esp. Polyb.+; UPZ 70, 13 [152/151 B.C.]; PGM 5, 69; LXX; ApcSed 14:7 [p. 136, 8f Ja.]; Philo; Joseph.; SibOr 5, 478; Just.; Mel., Fgm. 8, 1 and 2 Goodsp.=8b, 4 and 14 P.—In Gk. lit. gener. to put or go under water in a variety of senses, also fig., e.g. ‘soak’ Pla., Symp. 176b in wine) in our lit. only in ritual or ceremonial sense (as Plut.; Herm. Wr. [s. 2a below]; PGM 4, 44; 7, 441 λουσάμενος κ. βαπτισάμενος; 4 Km 5:14; Sir 34:25; Jdth 12:7; cp. Iren. 1, 21, 3 [Harv. I 183, 83]).
① wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify, of a broad range of repeated ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition (cp. Just., D. 46, 2) Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38; Ox 840, 15.—WBrandt, Jüd. Reinheitslehre u. ihre Beschreibg. in den Ev. 1910; ABüchler, The Law of Purification in Mk 7:1–23: ET 21, 1910, 34–40; JDöller, D. Reinheits-u. Speisegesetze d. ATs 1917; JJeremias, TZ 5, ’49, 418–28. See 1QS 5:8–23; 2:25–3:12; 4:20–22.

② to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship w. God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize. The transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term β. was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests.

ⓐ of dedicatory cleansing associated w. the ministry of John the Baptist (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 47, 4), abs. J 1:25, 28; 3:23a; 10:40; hence John is called ὁ βαπτίζων Mk 1:4; 6:14, 24 (Goodsp., Probs. 50–52).—Pass. Mt 3:16; ISm 1:1; oft. have oneself baptized, get baptized Mt 3:13f; Lk 3:7, 12, 21; 7:30; J 3:23b; GEb 18, 35f; IEph 18:2 al. (B-D-F §314; s. §317).—(ἐν) ὕδατι w. water Mk 1:8a; Lk 3:16a; Ac 1:5a; 11:16a; ἐν (τῷ) ὕδατι J 1:26, 31, 33; ἐν τῷ Ἰορδ. (4 Km 5:14) Mt 3:6; Mk 1:5; εἰς τὸν Ἰορδ. (cp. Plut., Mor. 166a βάπτισον σεαυτὸν εἰς θάλασσαν; Herm. Wr. 4, 4 βάπτισον σεαυτὸν εἰς τὸν κρατῆρα) Mk 1:9.—W. the external element and purpose given ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν Mt 3:11a (AOliver, Is β. used w. ἐν and the Instrumental?: RevExp 35, ’38, 190–97).—βαπτίζεσθαι τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου undergo John’s baptism Lk 7:29. εἰς τί ἐβαπτίσθητε; Ac 19:3 means, as the answer shows, in reference to what (baptism) were you baptized? i.e. what kind of baptism did you receive (as the context indicates, John’s baptism was designed to implement repentance as a necessary stage for the reception of Jesus; with the arrival of Jesus the next stage was the receipt of the Holy Spirit in connection with apostolic baptism in the name of Jesus, who was no longer the ‘coming one’, but the arrived ‘Lord’)? β. βάπτισμα μετανοίας administer a repentance baptism vs. 4; GEb 13, 74.—S. the lit. on Ἰωάν(ν)ης 1, and on the baptism of Jesus by John: JBornemann, D. Taufe Christi durch Joh. 1896; HUsener, D. Weihnachtsfest2 1911; DVölter, D. Taufe Jesu durch Joh.: NThT 6, 1917, 53–76; WBundy, The Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism: JR 7, 1927, 56–75; MJacobus, Zur Taufe Jesu bei Mt 3:14, 15: NKZ 40, 1929, 44–53; SHirsch, Taufe, Versuchung u. Verklärung Jesu ’32; DPlooij, The Baptism of Jesus: RHarris Festschr. (Amicitiae Corolla), ed. HWood ’33, 239–52; JKosnetter, D. Taufe Jesu ’36; HRowley, TManson memorial vol., ed. Higgins ’59, 218–29 (Qumran); JSchneider, Der historische Jesus u. d. kerygmatische Christus ’61, 530–42; HKraft, TZ 17, ’61, 399–412 (Joel); FLentzen-Dies, D. Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern, ’70. More reff. s.v. περιστερά.

ⓑ of cleansing performed by Jesus J 3:22, 26; 4:1; difft. 4:2 with disclaimer of baptismal activity by Jesus personally.

ⓒ of the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death (freq. pass.; s. above 2a; Iren. 3, 12, 9 [Harv. II 63, 3]) Mk 16:16; Ac 2:41; 8:12f, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:14–17; D 7 (where baptism by pouring is allowed in cases of necessity); ISm 8:2.—β. τινὰ εἰς (τὸ) ὄνομά τινος (s. ὄνομα 1dγב) baptize in or w. respect to the name of someone: (τοῦ) κυρίου Ac 8:16; 19:5; D 9:5; Hv 3, 7, 3. Cp. 1 Cor 1:13, 15. εἰς τ. ὄν. τ. πατρὸς καὶ τ. υἱοῦ καὶ τ. ἁγίου πνεύματος Mt 28:19 (on the original form of the baptismal formula see FConybeare, ZNW 2, 1901, 275–88; ERiggenbach, BFCT VII/1, 1903; VIII/4, 1904; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theologie2 I 1911, 449f; OMoe: RSeeberg Festschr. 1929, I 179–96; GOngaro, Biblica 19, ’38, 267–79; GBraumann, Vorpaulinische christl. Taufverkündigung bei Paulus ’62); D 7:1, 4. Likew. ἐν τῷ ὀν. Ἰ. Χριστοῦ Ac 2:38 v.l.; 10:48; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀν. Ἰ. Χρ. Ac 2:38 text; more briefly εἰς Χριστόν Gal 3:27; Ro 6:3a. To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν vs. 3b (s. Ltzm. ad loc.; HSchlier, EvTh ’38, 335–47; GWagner, D. relgeschichtliche Problem von Rö 6:1–11, ’62, tr. Pauline Bapt. and the Pagan Mysteries, by JSmith, ’67; RSchnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul ’64, tr. of D. Heilsgeschehen b. d. Taufe nach dem Ap. Paulus ’50). The effect of baptism is to bring all those baptized εἰς ἓν σῶμα 1 Cor 12:13 (perh. wordplay: ‘plunged into one body’).—W. the purpose given εἰς ἄφεσιν τ. ἁμαρτιῶν Ac 2:38 (IScheftelowitz, D. Sündentilgung durch Wasser: ARW 17, 1914, 353–412).—Diod S 5, 49, 6: many believe that by being received into the mysteries by the rites (τελεταί) they become more devout, more just, and better in every way.—ὑπὲρ τ. νεκρῶν 1 Cor 15:29a, s. also vs. *29b, is obscure because of our limited knowledge of a practice that was evidently obvious to the recipients of Paul’s letter; it has been interpr. (1) in place of the dead, i.e. vicariously; (2) for the benefit of the dead, in var. senses; (3) locally, over (the graves of) the dead; (4) on account of the dead, infl. by their good ex.; of these the last two are the least probable. See comm. and HPreisker, ZNW 23, 1924, 298–304; JZingerle, Heiliges Recht: JÖAI 23, 1926; Rtzst., Taufe 43f; AMarmorstein, ZNW 30, ’31, 277–85; AOliver, RevExp 34, ’37, 48–53; three articles: Kirchenblatt 98, ’42 and six: ET 54, ’43; 55, ’44; MRaeder, ZNW 46, ’56, 258–60; BFoschini, 5 articles: CBQ 12, ’50 and 13, ’51.—On the substitution of a ceremony by another person cp. Diod S 4, 24, 5: the boys who do not perform the customary sacrifices lose their voices and become as dead persons in the sacred precinct. When someone takes a vow to make the sacrifice for them, their trouble disappears at once.

③ to cause someone to have an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory water-rite, to plunge, baptize. Cp. ‘take the plunge’ and s. OED ‘Plunge’ II 5 esp. for the rendering of usage 3c, below.

ⓐ typologically of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσαντο they got themselves plunged/ baptized for Moses, thereby affirming his leadership 1 Cor 10:2 v.l. (if the pass. ἐβαπτίσθησαν is to be read with N. the point remains the same; but the mid. form puts the onus, as indicated by the context, on the Israelites).

ⓑ of the Holy Spirit (fire) β. τινὰ (ἐν) πνεύματι ἁγίῳ Mk 1:8 (v.l. + ἐν); J 1:33; Ac 1:5b; 11:16b; cp. 1 Cor 12:13 (cp. Just., D. 29, 1). ἐν πν. ἁγ. καὶ πυρί Mt 3:11b; Lk 3:16b (JDunn, NovT 14, ’72, 81–92). On the oxymoron of baptism w. fire: REisler, Orphischdionysische Mysterienged. in d. christl. Antike: Vortr. d. Bibl. Warburg II/2, 1925, 139ff; CEdsman, Le baptême de feu (ASNU 9) ’40. JATRobinson, The Baptism of John and Qumran, HTR 50, ’57, 175–91; cp. 1QS 4:20f.

ⓒ of martyrdom (s. the fig. uses in UPZ 70, 13 [152/151 B.C.]; Diod S 1, 73, 6; Plut., Galba 1062 [21, 3] ὀφλήμασι βεβ. ‘overwhelmed by debts’; Chariton 2, 4, 4, βαπτιζόμενος ὑπὸ τ. ἐπιθυμίας; Vi. Aesopi I c. 21 p. 278, 4 λύπῃ βαπτιζόμενος; Achilles Tat. 3, 10, 1 πλήθει βαπτισθῆναι κακῶν; Herm. Wr. 4, 4 ἐβαπτίσαντο τοῦ νοός; Is 21:4; Jos., Bell. 4, 137 ἐβάπτισεν τ. πόλιν ‘he drowned the city in misery’) δύνασθε τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι; Mk 10:38 (perh. the stark metaph. of impending personal disaster is to be rendered, ‘are you prepared to be drowned the way I’m going to be drowned?’); cp. vs. 39; Mt 20:22 v.l.; in striking contrast to fire Lk 12:50 (GDelling, Novum Testamentum 2, ’57, 92–115).—PAlthaus, Senior, D. Heilsbedeutung d. Taufe im NT 1897; WHeitmüller, Im Namen Jesu 1903, Taufe u. Abendmahl b. Paulus 1903, Taufe u. Abendmahl im Urchristentum 1911; FRendtorff, D. Taufe im Urchristentum 1905; HWindisch, Taufe u. Sünde im ältesten Christentum 1908; ASeeberg, D. Taufe im NT2 1913; AvStromberg, Studien zu Theorie u. Praxis der Taufe 1913; GottfrKittel, D. Wirkungen d. chr. Wassertaufe nach d. NT: StKr 87, 1914, 25ff; WKoch, D. Taufe im NT3 1921; JLeipoldt, D. urchr. Taufe im Lichte der Relgesch. 1928; RReitzenstein, D. Vorgesch. d. christl. Taufe 1929 (against him HSchaeder, Gnomon 5, 1929, 353–70, answered by Rtzst., ARW 27, 1929, 241–77); FDölger, Ac I 1929, II 1930; HvSoden, Sakrament u. Ethik bei Pls: ROtto Festschr., Marburger Theologische Studien ’31, no. 1, 1–40; MEnslin, Crozer Quarterly 8, ’31, 47–67; BBacon, ATR 13, ’31, 155–74; CBowen: RHutcheon, Studies in NT, ’36, 30–48; GBornkamm, ThBl 17, ’38, 42–52; 18, ’39, 233–42; HSchlier, EvTh ’38, 335–47 (Ro 6); EBruston, La notion bibl. du baptême: ÉTLR ’38, 67–93; 135–50; HMarsh, The Origin and Signif. of the NT Baptism ’41; KBarth, D. kirchl. Lehre v. d. Taufe2 ’43 (Eng. tr., The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, EPayne ’48); FGrant, ATR 27, ’45, 253–63; HSchlier, D. kirchl. Lehre v. d. Taufe: TLZ 72, ’47, 321–26; OCullmann, Baptism in the NT (tr. JReid) ’50; MBarth, D. Taufe ein Sakrament? ’51; RBultmann, Theology of the NT, tr. KGrobel ’51, I 133–44; JSchneider, D. Taufe im NT ’52; DStanley, TS 18, ’57, 169–215; EFascher, Taufe: Pauly-W. 2. Reihe IV 2501–18 (’32); AOepke, TW I ’33, 527–44; GBeasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT ’62; MQuesnel, Baptisés dans l’Esprit ’85 (Acts); DDaube, The NT and Rabbinic Judaism ’56, 106–40; NMcEleney, Conversion, Circumstance and the Law: NTS 20, ’74, 319–41; HBraun, Qumran u. d. NT II ’66, 1–29; OBetz, D. Proselytentaufe der Qumransekte u. d. NT: RevQ 1, ’58, 213–34; JYsebaert, Gk. Baptismal Terminology, ’62. S. τέκνον 1aα.—B. 1482. DELG s.v. βάπτω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 164–165). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I'm still struggling with how Paul could speak of the rite of baptism effecting a vital union with Christ in such a way that all who are baptized are in this union by faith (Rom 6:3-5, Gal 3:26-29, Col 2:11-14). This has made sense to me if all who converted and professed faith and repentance were then baptized as their formal identification with Christ

Except that this is not a possible state of affairs. What you're, in essence saying, is that the Church is supposed to baptize those whom it believes have already been baptized into Christ - those who are united to Christ. The Apostles never state this. They do not know who the elect are. There is an appropriate way to address an assembly of Chrsitians as those who are in Christ. I can exhort you personally with Paul's words even though I don't know if you are truly regenerate.
This has made sense to me if all who converted and professed faith and repentance were then baptized as their formal identification with Christ and his church. In this sense, baptism is seen as the summary or conclusion of conversion and can stand by metonymy for conversion to Christ.
There are several problems with this:

1. Baptism is an initatory and not a confirmatory rite. You argue that a person is to be bpatized with water after they have been discipled and the Church believes they have been baptized with the Spritit.

2. How is the Church to know that they have truly been converted? You say profession but, if the basis for baptism is to be that the person truly possesses what Paul refers to in Rom 6:3 and elsewhere, how did you come to the conclusion that a profession is the guarantor of possession by those tests? Where do you read in the Scriptures that a profession is the means by which the Church measures if a person is "in Christ" and is therefore to be baptized?

3. Are you truly converted? Pause for a moment to reflect on that question. I imagine you are rleatively young and times will come where life becomes more difficult and even the idea of following Christ becomes wearying over seasons. Your kids get older and start to move away. You drift in and out of zeal for Christ. You are tempted by your flesh to sin. Are you truly converted? Better yet, were you truly converted when you were baptized? That is, was the Church warranted in baptizing you when you were baptized? How are you to measure if your conversion was true? The signficance of your baptism resides in memory of a zeal you possesed at the time of your baptism. Its meaning? Only as vaild as your possession of the reality and your conviction that you really remember that you believed in Jesus back then. The Church, after all, is not delcaring a Promise to you under your notion of baptism but merely confirming what you are confident you possess.

Should that time come where your memory wanes or you might come to some fresh appehension of what it truly means to be in Christ and you conclude you might never have been baptized, your "once baptism" might become no baptism at all because its significance is biographical and doesn't rest in anything outside of you.

Yet, a fuller, Biblical understanding is that Baptism represents not your speech but God's to you by a minister declaring to you the promise that the reality belongs to those who trust in Christ. Your memory can fail, your faith can wax and wane but the sign remains valid with respect to the Promise inherent within it because it is made by God. The Gospel is centered around the act of our Mediator and baptism is a rite that initiates into a realm in which God speaks and grants to us not a realm in which the rites of the Church reverse the paradigm and make baptism some sort of "well we can't tell if he's been baptized".

That's why, even in your darkest moments of doubt about whether or not you ever really possessed faith you don't have to worry about whether or not you had faith. Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your heart. If Satan assails you and causes you to doubt that you were ever really a believer your answer is that you believe, Today, and your baptism still retains the Promise of God: I save all those who trust in Christ.
 
"Your memory can fail, your faith can wax and wane but the sign remains valid with respect to the Promise inherent within it because it is made by God. The Gospel is centered around the act of our Mediator ..."
Beautiful reflection! Thanks.
 
Did you notice that I earlier pointed out that our Confession states that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all of the elect?

Does that surprise you to read that our Confession does not believe that a reprobate can be, in substance, in the Covenant of Grace? They cannot because to be in the Covenant of Grace is to be in Christ.

I suppose this warrants a separate post/thread, but this gets at a separate question I have: How can infants be baptized as a sign of their membership within the CoG, of which Christ is the mediator and surety (Heb. 7:22), and yet not be saved? This seems to make Christ an un-saving mediator (sort of Arminian or Amyraldian, I suppose), OR he isn't the mediator for all who are within the CoG. This has been a big sticking point for me. When I asked others, the reply I got was, "WLC 31 refers to the covenant of redemption, not the covenant of grace. They're both spoken of as the same thing in the Westminster Standards because they weren't for." But then to collapse the CoR and CoG seems to be a Baptist move, seeking that the administration of the CoG reflects those given to Christ in the CoR. (See Benjamin Keach's theology here.)

I know people like you are not stupid, who say that Christ is the mediator of the CoG and yet offer the sign of the covenant to some who will never come to faith. So how does this work? Are the children not truly within the covenant membership until they're regenerated? If so, then baptism seems like it's only the sign offering or promising the covenant, but it doesn't really seal their membership within that covenant and the surety of Christ as their mediator.

2. How is the Church to know that they have truly been converted? You say profession but, if the basis for baptism is to be that the person truly possesses what Paul refers to in Rom 6:3 and elsewhere, how did you come to the conclusion that a profession is the guarantor of possession by those tests? Where do you read in the Scriptures that a profession is the means by which the Church measures if a person is "in Christ" and is therefore to be baptized?

3. Are you truly converted?

Post/thread #3 - aha! One of my concerns with Reformed Baptist theology is that by seeking to define the church in terms of election, I'm afraid that leaves us seeking inwardly our own status, rather than seeking outwardly the promise of God. (I'll never shake the Lutheranism in which I grew up! Check out my series of blog posts on "The Logic of Faith" intro, part I, part II, part III, and part IV; or at least part IV.) I find that the Baptist defines the church in terms of election, while the Reformed/Lutheran in terms of the extent of the means of grace, of God's Word going forth in preaching and sacrament. This makes for fuzzier borders, but it seems closer to my heart. The Baptist view somewhat also seems to point us back to a past decision of ours, while the Ref/Luth to a present promise of God. (This does make me wonder how each paradigm helps and/or hinders assurance of salvation, perseverance, and presumption.) And while I aesthetically prefer the Reformed view here, I'm just trying to square it with what the Bible (confession: chiefly the NT) teaches about the nature of the church, the CoG and its relation to the CoR, and what is explicitly written about baptism.

Thanks for all your help!
 
In classic covenant-theology (I'm graciously offering that there is a Baptist-covenantalism), in our Presbyterian theology, we say there are two ways that individuals relate to the Covenant of Grace. Those two ways are 1) substance, and 2) administration. They are distinguishable, though they belong together.

Someone can have the substance, the inward and spiritual reality, and lack the outward formality of things like: baptism, the church and its government, sound preaching, things like that. It is exceptional, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the church--but it happens. The Spirit handles the substance of things, the seal.

And, someone (in fact we are only too aware of more than a few) can have the administration, which is how we're referring to the earthbound, outward, human-handling of things--and lack the inward sealing. This is because the sign, the part that men participate in, does not confer ex opere the thing signified.

I know the Lutherans distinguish between their claims and Rome's on the power of the sacrament itself; the Lutherans are Protestant, and do not accept intrinsic efficacy of the sacramental action, but insist on the Spirit and the Word for that efficacy. And yet, they do not distinguish between sign and signification, or the sealing work of the Holy Spirit; but they affirm that in the baptism, properly done, the power (efficacy) is IN the performance itself by virtue of the Words of Institution. They associate efficacy with the Word: if Word, then regeneration (including faith-creation) with and by water baptism.

The Presbyterian doctrine is not that, although it is allowable (the possibility is there) that the occasion of baptism even of an infant, could be an inception-moment for the gracious work of the Spirit. But in point of fact, we confess that the efficacy of baptism is "not tied to the moment of administration," but that it should be effective in God's own timing for the elect as he has determined to make it. And, like the other sacrament, baptism is for strengthening faith, not for creating faith.

Now, unless you do not think that the covenants prior to the New were not ipso facto administrations of the Covenant of Grace, then the same question you've raised--"How can infants be baptized as a sign of their membership within the CoG, of which Christ is the mediator and surety (Heb. 7:22), and yet not be saved?"--is on the same grounds moved to challenge an ancient Israelite's child's participation in the Covenant of Grace. That child was, from the start and marked on the 8th day, identified as part of the CoG in its administration, under the types and shadows of the Old Covenant, and before that the Abrahamic covenant.

The import (so far as we understand Scripture's teaching) of baptism and circumcision so overlap, that they are regarded as corollary, only with dispensation-specific qualities in some minor particulars. So then, the objection you raise--if it has an answer in Old Testament terms--also has the same basic answer in New Testament terms.
 
I suppose this warrants a separate post/thread, but this gets at a separate question I have: How can infants be baptized as a sign of their membership within the CoG, of which Christ is the mediator and surety (Heb. 7:22), and yet not be saved? This seems to make Christ an un-saving mediator (sort of Arminian or Amyraldian, I suppose), OR he isn't the mediator for all who are within the CoG. This has been a big sticking point for me. When I asked others, the reply I got was, "WLC 31 refers to the covenant of redemption, not the covenant of grace. They're both spoken of as the same thing in the Westminster Standards because they weren't for." But then to collapse the CoR and CoG seems to be a Baptist move, seeking that the administration of the CoG reflects those given to Christ in the CoR. (See Benjamin Keach's theology here.)
I'm not sure why you specialize the question about being in the CoG to infants. Do you not realize the same question can be asked about any adult as well? Are they *really* in the CoG?

The Confessions teach that those baptized (either by profession or as infants) are members of the visible administration of the CoG but the *reality* belongs to the elect.

For the unregenerate baptized (either adult or child) they are not united to Christ.

That said, remember that Christ's Mediator ship includes Prophet and King and not only Priest (this is a common thing overlooked by Baptists when they ask how Christ can function in any way as Mediator).

Remember I keep telling you that your larger problem is not what you think you reject in the Westminster Standards but that you apparently have not expressed and focus only on the question of the subjects of baptism.

when the Word is preached to the Church, the minister is functioning as Christ's minister. The Mediator has appointed the means of preaching and preaching occurs under His office as Prophet.

Furthermore, there is the work of the Session in the admission of members into the visible Kingdom (the Church) as well as its discipline. This occurs under the auspices of Christ as King.

Thus, we see not merely the invisible work of the Spirit at work but the visible work that occurs under Christ as Mediator.

'm just trying to square it with what the Bible (confession: chiefly the NT) teaches about the nature of the church, the CoG and its relation to the CoR, and what is explicitly written about baptism.
But you haven't "squared" it. How does the Baptist restrict baptism to the elect? This point is never fully wrestled with.

Baptist CT consistently makes this unwarranted shift where it claims to be protecting the Church from baptizing the unregenerate but never demonstrates, exegetically or theologically, that it accomplishes this aim by baptizing professors. This is why the LBCF doesn't read that baptism confers membership in the CoG because the writers recognized that nobody (according to this theology) can make such an assertion. Thus, the Baptist starts with the argument that they are protecting the NC from having unregenerate people being baptized and then when it comes to confessing whether baptism of professors is the solution, it admits that election is, after all, belongs to hidden things.

If you're going to cognitively rest on the baptism of professors making better Scriptural or theological sense then you cannot rest it on something that doesn't actaully solve the problem as to whom we are to baptize. In other words, we both agree that ONLY the elect are truly in the CoG but that reality does not actually lead to any good and necessary consequence that only professors are to be baptized.
 
That said, remember that Christ's Mediator ship includes Prophet and King and not only Priest (this is a common thing overlooked by Baptists when they ask how Christ can function in any way as Mediator).
I had never thought of it that way; perhaps I had been limiting it to his role as priest. I'll need to think about that more. But if Christ is mediator as king/judge and prophet - ultimately to the doom of the one who comes under his mediation but not under his saving priestly role - does this "divide Christ into parts", as Calvin warns in book 3 of his Institutes? (I know the context there is that one cannot be justified without being sanctified, or vice versa.)
Baptist CT consistently makes this unwarranted shift where it claims to be protecting the Church from baptizing the unregenerate but never demonstrates, exegetically or theologically, that it accomplishes this aim by baptizing professors.
Good to think through! I had sort of assumed profession of faith (or willingness to embrace baptism personally and be identified with the church) was sufficient outward criteria (to use Bruce's term) for baptism, given Romans 10:9-13 and Acts 2:21, 38-41, that all who confess that Jesus is Lord and call on him are saved. As 1 Corinthians 12:3 says, "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord!' except by the Holy Spirit." So I assume that while someone's profession may be false and professors CAN and DO fall away (the whole book of Hebrews is a warning to those who confess/profess hope in Christ), this is normally seen as evidence of saving Spirit-work in someone's heart. We baptize on what we can see/hear, though only God knows the heart. You're right that no one can truly know who's elect, so baptizing on the unknowable criterion of election (the substance of new covenant or CoG membership) is inaccurate.

For clarification, then: When we baptize believers' children, are we doing so as a sign that they are members of the covenant and have Christ as mediator (possibly not in his priestly role though), or as an offer of the covenant in its substance? Maybe these aren't really two different things.

And on a related note, on what basis were infants circumcised in Israel? I keep hearing it's "believers circumcised their children," but it seems to me Israelites were circumcised regardless of their immediate biological father's faith. Rather, it was on account of their descent from Abraham as his physical offspring (and with a view toward their inclusion as spiritual offspring as well, via their faith in the promised Offspring, Christ). If the former, then that's sufficient warrant to baptize Christian believers' babies. But if the latter, it seems like the determinig factor for baptism/circumcision is our relation to Abraham and whether or not we're HIS offspring by union with Christ (Gal. 3:7, 9, 29).

Thank you guys for all your time-consuming clarifications! I appreciate the challenge and new ways of seeing things.
 
I had never thought of it that way; perhaps I had been limiting it to his role as priest. I'll need to think about that more. But if Christ is mediator as king/judge and prophet - ultimately to the doom of the one who comes under his mediation but not under his saving priestly role - does this "divide Christ into parts", as Calvin warns in book 3 of his Institutes? (I know the context there is that one cannot be justified without being sanctified, or vice versa.)
I keep trying to get you to "look at it this way" because you aren't bringing up the germane foundational issues in the Confession that get to the issue of the sacraments. You didn't start the thread by saying you have a problem with sacraments in general but baptism in particular. Your problem with with sacraments in general and then that traces back to how you see sacraments in connection to the Church as a ministerial entity. That then traces back to evangelical graces and other operations that are connected to Christ as Mediator. You can't understand the Confession unless you understand every theological header after the Mediator Chapter to be organically related to Christ as Mediator and giving us fruition in the things regarding God.

You have a tendency to treat election in the abstract as if you have access to things Divine instead of seeing election as related to the work of the Mediator being worked out in real history, by means appointed, by the laying on of physical hands for those who would preach and rule. Notice that the Reformed Churches don't have priests because we have One Priest. The Word that is preached is not a Word that is preached by the authority of the Church to proclaim it but stands under the institution of our Prophet. The right to rule is not self-defined but flows under Christ as He rules not only over the kingdoms of this world but over the realm of the Church. Is Christ divided because His Word is proclaimed to the whole world but only bears lasting fruit in the elect? Is Christ divided as King because He reigns over the reprobate in the realms of government but specifically goes to battle spiritually for His elect?

For clarification, then: When we baptize believers' children, are we doing so as a sign that they are members of the covenant and have Christ as mediator (possibly not in his priestly role though), or as an offer of the covenant in its substance? Maybe these aren't really two different things.
Children and professors are members in the visible sense. This is why they are baptized. It is a sign marking them out from the world as those who are under the discipling authority of the Church. The "or as an offer" is an odd way of putting it. The purpose of discipleship for all in the Church is to point men and women to Christ and obedience to the Gospel. The Church simply cannot operate on the basis that it will discriminate in its activities toward those it presumes are elect and those who it presumes are unregenerate. The same exhortation to "hold fast" and "don't shrink back" is given to all.

Three out of my five kids are now communicant members. Do I know they are elect? No. I don't pray for and with them as if some level of profession has now transported them into some sort of phase where the command of the Gospel is not for them today. I teach and exhort all of them, younger and older, to believe in Christ. I teach them to pray to Him and I pray that He would grant and sustain faith in Him.

I treat them like I treat the adults in my Church. One of our elders came to me years ago doubting God. Turns out he was committing adultery and acts like a child of the devil to this day. Did I assume he was a believer? He had zeal for the things of Christ and had sacrificed much for the Gospel over decades. Was there a time when I should have thought: "Surely, he's made a strong profession and his life bears apparent fruit so his baptism is 'real'. He's beyond the point where the command of the Gospel is necessary."

I just see the Christian life as a continuous battle. A marathon race to be run. A command to stand firm. A command to continue, to press in, to believe today. The notion that baptism is tied to some point of confession in the past as some more or less certain mark that a person is a Christian doesn't accord with the continuous nature of the battle and the race.

It's rather like a person who is at mile marker 1 of a marathon stops for a moment and is baptized as one who is surely the kind of person who will complete the marathon. What zeal he has for running after 1 mile! What a confident and fresh face he has. He has on running shoes so he must be the kind of person who will finish the race.

The picture in the NT is that those in the visible Church are entered into the race together. Those who decide to run in the formation are baptized into the formation run. A family has a child so they carry him along the course until he can start running tentative steps for himself. He is then expected at some point to stay in the race along with everybody else who can decide whether they want to shrink back from the prize. We don't know for sure who will finish the race but we know who is running it with us right now. We know that God knows who will complete the race and who will endure to the end but we don't go to stragglers and tell them: "You're not keeping up, go away, you're slowing us down." We encourage, we exhort. Come on! Keep going. I know it hurts but the prize is worth it!
And on a related note, on what basis were infants circumcised in Israel?
Please see my initial response to this thread. Circumcision was both a visible sin and a seal of aith. The former marked one out as belonging to the external Covenant. Hebrews speaks of the generation in the wilderness of having the Gospel preached to them and they shrunk back in the way we are warned not to do.
 
And on a related note, on what basis were infants circumcised in Israel? I keep hearing it's "believers circumcised their children," but it seems to me Israelites were circumcised regardless of their immediate biological father's faith. Rather, it was on account of their descent from Abraham as his physical offspring (and with a view toward their inclusion as spiritual offspring as well, via their faith in the promised Offspring, Christ). If the former, then that's sufficient warrant to baptize Christian believers' babies. But if the latter, it seems like the determinig factor for baptism/circumcision is our relation to Abraham and whether or not we're HIS offspring by union with Christ (Gal. 3:7, 9, 29).
I can't comprehend why anyone might think: God would give a religious prescription, and that it would be fine for people to engage with it in a purely carnal manner. Was Abraham's religion, and later Israelite religion, a matter of the heart? Sure, there were people in Israel who went through the motions of religion (and probably others who didn't even bother, depending on what they could get away with at this or that time and place). But is that how it was meant to be? What incentive was there for a Baal worshiper (in Israel) to acknowledge Jehovah (his old deity) in his son's flesh?

What would be the point of circumcising one's son if divorced from faith? Pure habit? Even if it was nominal faith, there was a connection there to the covenant made and religious reasons for bearing the mark. Why would anyone carry on a blind tradition? People invent reasons for such things, even if they have forgotten the true reason. Did they come up with something else? How would we know? Whence arises the notion that Israelites circumcised their sons mainly to remind them (whenever they glanced at their privates): "Abraham is your misty-past biological forefather, and he said to cut you so you'll always remember him?"
 
I can't comprehend why anyone might think: God would give a religious prescription, and that it would be fine for people to engage with it in a purely carnal manner. Was Abraham's religion, and later Israelite religion, a matter of the heart? Sure, there were people in Israel who went through the motions of religion (and probably others who didn't even bother, depending on what they could get away with at this or that time and place). But is that how it was meant to be? What incentive was there for a Baal worshiper (in Israel) to acknowledge Jehovah (his old deity) in his son's flesh?

What would be the point of circumcising one's son if divorced from faith? Pure habit? Even if it was nominal faith, there was a connection there to the covenant made and religious reasons for bearing the mark. Why would anyone carry on a blind tradition? People invent reasons for such things, even if they have forgotten the true reason. Did they come up with something else? How would we know? Whence arises the notion that Israelites circumcised their sons mainly to remind them (whenever they glanced at their privates): "Abraham is your misty-past biological forefather, and he said to cut you so you'll always remember him?"
Well, that took a rather disturbing turn....
 
I treat them like I treat the adults in my Church. One of our elders came to me years ago doubting God. Turns out he was committing adultery and acts like a child of the devil to this day. Did I assume he was a believer? He had zeal for the things of Christ and had sacrificed much for the Gospel over decades. Was there a time when I should have thought: "Surely, he's made a strong profession and his life bears apparent fruit so his baptism is 'real'. He's beyond the point where the command of the Gospel is necessary."
That distinction between the internal and external administration of the covenant has been so helpful for coming to terms with just what goes on in apostasy.

I felt like I lacked that as a Baptist; and when someone who I looked up to in the faith and had been so active and passionate about his life in Christ left, it felt devastating to me as a young believer. It was very difficult to come to terms with just what had happened. Experientially, I mean. I know Baptists have their explanations that make sense as well. But the notion seemed to present itself most readily as a Baptist was that my friend had just been "faking" it the whole time. And I couldn't square that, somehow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top