Baptism and Salvation

[Grillsy]

I have placed this in the paedo-only section. I want an opportunity to discuss this with my fellow paedobaptists. I feel that too many similar threads are taken off course by the paedo/credo debate.

Essentially what I want to discuss is the relationship between baptism and salvation?

Can an infant be regenerated or saved upon their baptism? If so, is this a common occurrence?

Does Baptism truly bring about what it signifies? If so, what is that?

Do my questions make sense?

 

[greenbaggins]

The standard Reformed answer is that baptism is a sign and seal of salvation. For an analogy, a sign that says "Philadelphia 23 miles" indicates that if you keep on your present course, you will enter the city limits of Philadelphia, not Tokyo. The seal, in ancient times, was used to prevent fraud in the sending of letters. A bit of wax was melted and put on the letter, and one's signet ring was impressed into the wax, so that people would know who sent the letter. In neither case is the sign or seal identified with the thing it represents. It is connected with the thing it represents, but is not the same thing as the thing it represents.

So, the water in baptism is a physical sign of the blood of Christ. Just as water washes away dirt, so the blood of Christ washes away sins. The person will need to be washed in the blood of Christ to have the thing signified. The water is also a seal of God's promise that whosoever believes in Jesus Christ will be washed of their sins in the blood of Christ. The promise is from God and is rock solid.

An infant can be regenerated before, during, or after baptism. The efficacy of baptism is not tied down to the moment at which it is administered. Abraham believed before he had the sign (Romans 4). Many believe after they have the sign. Given that infant baptism happens early in life, the mathematical probability is that most people will believe and be saved after their baptism.

There is an ambiguity here also in how one uses the term "baptism." Most people refer to the water rite done in the name of the Triune God. However, it can refer to the entire Sacrament: sign, thing signified, and sacramental union of sign and thing signified accomplished by the Holy Spirit. If used in the former sense of the sign, then no, baptism does not bring about what it signifies. There are many baptized who are utterly lost in their sins. If used in the latter sense, however, it can be another way of describing salvation as a whole.

 

[Grillsy]

Then another question would be what is the sacramental union of sign and thing signified?

I know the Confessions and the Reformed vocabulary but I am really trying to flesh out the issues. So please
forgive my constant questioning.

 

[greenbaggins]

That's quite all right.

The sacramental union is the connection between the sign and the thing signified such that the sign is not just an empty sign (although for non-believers, it is not merely empty, but is rather a proof of condemnation). In the analogy of the sign "Philadelphia 23 miles," one could think of the road connecting the sign to Philadelphia as the sacramental union. The union is created by the Holy Spirit. It is what allows us to use sacramental language, whereby the effects of salvation are sometimes attributed to the sign (as in 1 Peter 3:18-22). In a person's life, when they come to faith, the connection between the sign and the thing signified is created by the Holy Spirit. It is the closing of the circle, as it were. The baptism becomes complete at that point, such that they have it all.