Paedo-Baptism Answers Baptism Solely a Profession of Faith?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonathan95

Puritan Board Sophomore
After talking with one of the deacons of my church, the general teaching surrounding baptism seems to be that it is solely a profession of faith.

Essentially that baptism is just a testimony to the congregation that you believe in Christ and are not ashamed to follow and obey Him.

This is very unsettling to me. I'm still studying the topic but it seems to me that this is an incredibly low view of baptism.

How would you go about explaining that it is a sign and seal of the promise? What exactly is promised in baptism? How would you approach the topic with a church that backs this erroneous teaching?

Thank you for any thoughts!
 
Is this the forum you want? Possibly Credo-baptism answers, as offered here on the PB, with the LBC in perspective?
 
Is this the forum you want? Possibly Credo-baptism answers, as offered here on the PB, with the LBC in perspective?

Hmm, no I think this is the one I meant! Only because I think I have a good grasp on how someone who holds to LBCF would answer the questions. Thank you!
 
Is this the forum you want? Possibly Credo-baptism answers, as offered here on the PB, with the LBC in perspective?

I think Jonathan desires the sacramental view to compare against the LBCF view that it is just a sign (LBCF 29.1). His church espouses that baptism's only use is a confession of faith (and some Reformed credobaptists would not go that low, I believe), whereas we hold to the sacramental view, or that baptism is a sign and a seal. How would you explain your view Pastor?

Jonathan to the one question you had, "what is promised in baptism" look no further than the Apostle Peter. For the elected covenant children, baptism promises, seals, and signifies the washing of regeneration, salvation through Christ, and an answer of good conscience to God.
Titus 3.5, 1 Peter 3.21, Acts 2.38
 
I personally don't want to characterize my Baptist brethren's view of baptism as "incredibly low." In certain respects, it is lower compared to mine in my perspective. I'm not sure the Baptist and I could fully agree on some objective perspective for the both of us to share.

And, I suspect it is the case that there is a presentation of the Baptist Confession stance that adds something to the bare "testimony to the congregation" takeaway.

It is part of the difference in the Presbyterian and the common Baptist perspective, to note that "Who is the primary speaker in baptism?" makes for a fairly fundamental divide in understanding.

-----If baptism is first and foremost a personal, individual public witness --a man's statement-- then the church participates, facilitates, and validates that claim.

-----If baptism is first and foremost the church's welcome and declaration of incorporation, then the personal (or in the case of parents, for the baptized) affirmation is the reply or answer.

These two priorities seem to me set in view two distinct starting points, two understandings of the nature of baptism; but also expose some differences in what the church is about, the meaning of its ministry.

This is not saying--and I'm glad it isn't--there is no overlap in the content of what Baptists affirm about baptism and the church, and what Presbyterians affirm. But it makes a difference where one starts; it makes a difference how one puts the material together in a collection. The picture that's assembled at the end looks a little different to each examination, and definitely the other collection does not seem as coherent to the opposite collector.


In the Presbyterian's theology, the church (the minister) is serving, as he regularly does in all his other formal activity in worship, as God's spokesman. He is speaking for God, or on the part of God. That is an important element of what we understand the church's job is in the world--representing God in Christ to the world. There are lots of ways the church speaks in God's name, including many informal ways by which individual Christians do this. But then there are the formal and public ways, and that is a responsibility that should be accompanied by ordination to that role or task.

So, in baptism the Presbyterian church's intent, meaning the minister's intent, is to declare this baptized person a member of the church, a disciple of Christ; and to proclaim the promise of God, (here I'm borrowing the Heidelberg Catechism Ans.#69) "that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away."

Understand: God will do this for the believer. When any baptized person so testifies to his sure conviction of this, saying "I, myself, I am certainly..."--regardless of when he was baptized and the promise was declared--he claims to believe in God's word of promise which baptism declares.

The promise of God is for believers. It is declared to be The Case, regardless of whether it is accepted or not. The certainty of the promise is not dependent on the faith of anyone. Unless someone knows by prophecy what exactly will happen, by whom, to whom, etc., there is nothing in the Bible that assures anyone of his personal title to any promise of God irrespective of his belief and hope.

So, we should not be misunderstood to say that God, in baptism, has just promised Adult John Doe or Infant John Doe-- "You ARE a child of God, you ARE going to heaven." That is NOT the promise of God, it is not from the Bible. It is not the claim... unless he happens to be a crypto-RomanCatholic, or possibly an Anglican, or a Lutheran, someone who holds to some form of baptismal regeneration. But that doctrine is contrary to our Confession.

This is what makes baptism a seal: its promissory character. Now, the Spirit of God alone applies that seal in the secret place, and does it for his elect. What men see with their eyes is a sign, pointing to the things that baptism signifies. It is a "seal" also, but only in the sense that there (as it were upon the paper) the authenticating mark of the King's signet has been placed to visibly mark his property and his claim. Because of the kind of seal it is, affixed by the hand of a man, it could be invalidated. But insofar as the secret seal is set by the design of the Holy Spirit, that is an irrevocable seal. "The Lord knoweth them that are his," 2Tim.2:19.

When His seal is apprehended by faith, then it is effectual. When the sign is appreciated by faith, then the promise is accessible to him that can comprehend and read the sign. The things that are signified by baptism belong especially to him that is baptized. Of course, those things could also belong to some elect person who has not (for any reason) not had the privilege of baptism, precisely because it is faith in those things signified that mean possession of them. But the value of the sign is how God has united it with the things signified.

Imagine the uselessness, or even the condemnation, of possessing the sign of something of God's, and making no use of it, misusing it, devaluing it, or even execrating it. It is why possession only of the sign of a thing (when accounting is made), is so damnable, regardless of how one came to possess it, see 2Sam.1:5, 10, 15.
 
It is a common misunderstanding even among Reformed Baptists that baptism is "just" a public profession of faith. Certainly in general baptist circles that is what baptism is, but for Reformed Baptists to take that perspective is rather inexcusable given the teaching of the 1689 confession, where it is given a much richer meaning and significance.

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

Here we see that it is a sign not to the Church or congregation primarily but to the person being baptized of the following truths: union/fellowship with Christ , remission of sin, and of their commitment to live in newness of life in obedience to Christ.

Now, the RB position is that baptism is not seal, the seal commonly being identified as the indwelling Spirit.
 
I personally don't want to characterize my Baptist brethren's view of baptism as "incredibly low." In certain respects, it is lower compared to mine in my perspective. I'm not sure the Baptist and I could fully agree on some objective perspective for the both of us to share.

And, I suspect it is the case that there is a presentation of the Baptist Confession stance that adds something to the bare "testimony to the congregation" takeaway.

It is part of the difference in the Presbyterian and the common Baptist perspective, to note that "Who is the primary speaker in baptism?" makes for a fairly fundamental divide in understanding.

-----If baptism is first and foremost a personal, individual public witness --a man's statement-- then the church participates, facilitates, and validates that claim.

-----If baptism is first and foremost the church's welcome and declaration of incorporation, then the personal (or in the case of parents, for the baptized) affirmation is the reply or answer.

These two priorities seem to me set in view two distinct starting points, two understandings of the nature of baptism; but also expose some differences in what the church is about, the meaning of its ministry.

This is not saying--and I'm glad it isn't--there is no overlap in the content of what Baptists affirm about baptism and the church, and what Presbyterians affirm. But it makes a difference where one starts; it makes a difference how one puts the material together in a collection. The picture that's assembled at the end looks a little different to each examination, and definitely the other collection does not seem as coherent to the opposite collector.


In the Presbyterian's theology, the church (the minister) is serving, as he regularly does in all his other formal activity in worship, as God's spokesman. He is speaking for God, or on the part of God. That is an important element of what we understand the church's job is in the world--representing God in Christ to the world. There are lots of ways the church speaks in God's name, including many informal ways by which individual Christians do this. But then there are the formal and public ways, and that is a responsibility that should be accompanied by ordination to that role or task.

So, in baptism the Presbyterian church's intent, meaning the minister's intent, is to declare this baptized person a member of the church, a disciple of Christ; and to proclaim the promise of God, (here I'm borrowing the Heidelberg Catechism Ans.#69) "that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away."

Understand: God will do this for the believer. When any baptized person so testifies to his sure conviction of this, saying "I, myself, I am certainly..."--regardless of when he was baptized and the promise was declared--he claims to believe in God's word of promise which baptism declares.

The promise of God is for believers. It is declared to be The Case, regardless of whether it is accepted or not. The certainty of the promise is not dependent on the faith of anyone. Unless someone knows by prophecy what exactly will happen, by whom, to whom, etc., there is nothing in the Bible that assures anyone of his personal title to any promise of God irrespective of his belief and hope.

So, we should not be misunderstood to say that God, in baptism, has just promised Adult John Doe or Infant John Doe-- "You ARE a child of God, you ARE going to heaven." That is NOT the promise of God, it is not from the Bible. It is not the claim... unless he happens to be a crypto-RomanCatholic, or possibly an Anglican, or a Lutheran, someone who holds to some form of baptismal regeneration. But that doctrine is contrary to our Confession.

This is what makes baptism a seal: its promissory character. Now, the Spirit of God alone applies that seal in the secret place, and does it for his elect. What men see with their eyes is a sign, pointing to the things that baptism signifies. It is a "seal" also, but only in the sense that there (as it were upon the paper) the authenticating mark of the King's signet has been placed to visibly mark his property and his claim. Because of the kind of seal it is, affixed by the hand of a man, it could be invalidated. But insofar as the secret seal is set by the design of the Holy Spirit, that is an irrevocable seal. "The Lord knoweth them that are his," 2Tim.2:19.

When His seal is apprehended by faith, then it is effectual. When the sign is appreciated by faith, then the promise is accessible to him that can comprehend and read the sign. The things that are signified by baptism belong especially to him that is baptized. Of course, those things could also belong to some elect person who has not (for any reason) not had the privilege of baptism, precisely because it is faith in those things signified that mean possession of them. But the value of the sign is how God has united it with the things signified.

Imagine the uselessness, or even the condemnation, of possessing the sign of something of God's, and making no use of it, misusing it, devaluing it, or even execrating it. It is why possession only of the sign of a thing (when accounting is made), is so damnable, regardless of how one came to possess it, see 2Sam.1:5, 10, 15.

This helps in my understanding, thank you!
 
I believe this forum is overused. This thread is a case in point. Baptists are excluded from a discussion about their views of Baptism.
:scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

I am a Baptist. I don't need to hear the answer from Baptists. I literally have the answer in my own noggin. I am studying the Presbyterian position and wanted clarification from a Presbyterian. Thank you .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top