~~Susita~~
Puritan Board Junior
Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help
Which unsaved infant are you referring to? Do you have the name of an un-elect infant in a Reformed Church so we can discuss that particular child?
If she does embrace Christ by faith, she need not be re-baptized for the the promise was made by One who doesn't change.
But if she is not one of His elect (GOD FORBID! I will pray for her, Mr. Leavelle), what was the point of that baptism?
Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.Incidentally, Susan, I'm not berating you. This is called Socratic questioning. I'm trying to draw something out of you...
This is an important question. Our understanding of what baptism actually is hangs on it.
Sure, a Presbyterian believes that baptism is the sign of entrance into the visible Church for children of believers but he also understands that baptism is a sign of God's promises to his people. In this sense, baptism is for all who witness it. The ritual is not merely a profession of dedication on the receiver's end. It is God saying something to the receiver and to everyone: that those who repent and believe will receive what the sign signifies. It doesn't (and this is the Baptist error) say "the person receiving this sign has what is signified."
Susan, I'm sure someone will correct me if I incorrectly state the facts, but the basic difference in the two camps seems to be one of having a different view of the purpose of water baptism. The one sees it as an outward, visible sign of a profession of faith of the believer, whereby you confess that you have been buried and raised with Christ. The other sees at as an outward, visible sign of belonging to the covenant body of believers, or the visible church...similar to circumcision in the old testament, signifying being under the covenant and of Israel. But remember, God judged plenty of Jews, even though they had been circumcised since the 8th day of their lives. Circumcision didn't guarantee or indicate election and neither does baptism.
Okay I read those last two sentences a few times and I understand that. Do you have some Scripture about what you just said that I can study?
I really appreciate your help and at the same time, I ask for everyone's patience. I have much to learn and it's frustrating
Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.
Susan, you have a PM.Yes, okay, that's great! Folks, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it at this so I can study/read my Bible for a bit, then I'll hit this thread up again.
Thanks!
Quality materials for further study:
David Engelsma’s, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html
Herman Hoeksema’s, Believers and Their Seed, is a good book on the topic.
Another is Herman Hanko’s We And Our Children, specifically responding to Reformed Baptist David Kingdon’s Children of Abraham
Back to the present: When my daughter was born (1972), she was baptized while an infant. I was an ignorant young believer, knowing nothing of sound doctrine, or of the paedo-credo dispute, yet I baptized her…I suppose you might say by intuition. I see, now that I am more mature, the Scripture equates NT baptism with OT circumcision:
The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded.
Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.
That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion.If she answers my questions and thinks about the answer then she'll understand why her question about why people would baptize an unsaved infant makes no sense.
Not at all. You'd have to see where the questions went to conclude that I was begging any inferences. My questioning was going to be along common assumptions concerning election, etc....That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion.
R.C. Sproul does a wonderful thing in his theology classes. He compels the avowed paedo-baptist pupils to study a credo-baptist book, and vice versa. It helps to know what the other side believes and why they believe it. But when someone challenges you or asks why, you can't just expect to make a challenge to their position merely by counter-questions.