They would be members when they professed saving faith in Jesus, and then water baptized as a sign to what God has done for them.
Baptism & New Covenant
- Thread starter HisRobes4Mine
- Start date
- Status
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I know that's your position, but would you agree that pastors shepherding them in addition to prayers, Sunday schools, catechisms, participation in church life, etc., would be the same as treating them like members?
I'm thinking the only one thing you haven't done is officially recognize them as members and give them baptism.
That would be due to them not as of yet making a profession of faith into/unto Jesus, as batism would be reserved foe one who has been born again.
It does seem that there is not as much of a real difference between us in regards to how we view children. at least not in the practical sense.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Not really. Baptism is for confessors of the faith, just like in the OT. Some baptizees are not regenerate as our evidence is solely based on confession and not flawless.
It is the outward sign of the internal work already done by God.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
David,
It can only be this if you own the infamous regeneration goggles. Baptists (and Presbyterians in the case of adult confessors) alike take "a credible (or good) profession". "Credible profession" admits that we don't have God's knowledge.....
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
The only real difference is that you don't officially regard them as members of the church (ie. disciples), though you are effectively discipling them. We think the discipleship qualifies them for baptism (Matthew 28:19).
Do you think that a Baptist church who is faithful to the children in the congregation to shepherd them is effectively discipling them?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The sign and thing signified are not one and the same.
The water baptism is the physical rite that mirrors the spiritual baptism the Holy Spirit has done to place us in the body of Jesus.
You have made me think here on your points, and would say that I would have no time age for children to be baptized, as believe the Lord can and has saved them young, but they did assent to Jesus as being their savior.
True, in the sense of only God and the person being baptized knows if really are converted, but one professing that Jesus is Lord would be evidence of such.
I would also add that there is a time of discussion with any applicant to be baptized, as either one of the pastors/Elders would speak and see if they felt that person understood what was going on in the ordinace being done to them.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I could name a number of disciples of Christ who held to this claim and ultimately, were not. Judas, Demas, Ananaias and his wife, Simon Magus.
One is not saved by what they know...gnosticism. The church goes on confession. It is not flawless. We 'presume'.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
My question is this: who knows this information? Pastors? Elders? The mail man? No, church officers make their "best quess" on a "credible profession". Since circumcision was the sign of the OC, and baptism in the NC (undisputed), was a child circumcised on the 8th day necessarily "born again" on or before the 8th day?
I'm not trying to start a battle between the Baptists and Reformed, David, but rather point out that sometimes you sound like a Baptist, sometimes Reformed, sometimes like an Evangelical, and sometimes a mixture of more than one of these. It is hard enough to craft a defense for one person, but against three or more, it is nearly impossible..........
I have been amused with the title of Fred Malone's book "The Baptism of Disciples Alone". In reality he baptises professing believers!
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, I believe that the children who are under the authority of the church are under the external manifestation of the NC. This applies to baptist children and reformed children.
And furthermore, I would argue that baptism is a sign for those under the external manifestation of the NC. No one knows who is regenerate. Jesus teaches us that the church is filled with both wheat and tares. I do not believe that God expects us to administer a sign if we cannot even determine who should receive it.
Jesus teaches us that the sign of baptism is to be given to 'disciples'. I think that is the key in this whole debate. I do not believe that the word 'disciple' necessarily implies 'regenerate' or 'saved' or 'redeemed'. I think this word simply implies someone who is under the authority of someone's teaching. After all, as I have already pointed out, in John 6, some of Jesus' 'disciples' left him after they could not stomach his teaching. Were these people 'true' disciples? Yes, they were - they sat under the authority of his teaching. Were these people believers? No, because if they were, they would have continued with him (1 John).
A child born to believing parents (who are faithfully teaching their child and are members of a church) is sitting under the teaching of the Lord Jesus from day 1. Therefore, why not give them the sign? After all, the pattern for 2,000 years was to give the sign of God's covenant to the children of the covenant people.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I’m not sure how this is an argument against paedo-Baptism.
Hebrews 10 is the most explicit on this (in my opinion):
“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Yes. We agree with this statement if it’s taken alone. Yet, I assume this is said with baptistic presuppositions.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
This might be helpful to the discussion:
https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/
https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/
Calvinistic Baptist, who would hold to Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology in regards to Sotierology, ordinances, and how the local church is to be governed.
No, prefer to see it done to professing believers, but do not see Infant Baptism as something to fight over.Are you a foe of a particular type of Baptism?
I understand what you are articulating here, as your reply is well thought out, and my reply would be that under the NT/NC, to me it still seems that the scriptures teach to us that the sign of the water baptism is to externally indicate to us what God has already done if the life of that person, in that they are saved and now part of the true community of faith/the church of Christ/the Body of Christ.
Do Baptists and Presbyterians regard each other baptism as being valid though?
If an adult attending a your church , who was never baptized, but become a Christian as an adult, would they be water baptized at that time then?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
No. In the Presbyterian view, the Baptist effectively unchurches the Presbyterian baptized as an infant who presents himself for membership. Accordingly, baptism would be required once again.
Presbyterians and Baptists alike would baptize this candidate for membership.
So both groups would require the converted adult to be baptized correct? And would that be immersion for both groups if an adult?No. In the Presbyterian view, the Baptist effectively unchurches the Presbyterian baptized as an infant who presents himself for membership. Accordingly, baptism would be required once again.
Presbyterians and Baptists alike would baptize this candidate for membership.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, reformed churches require converted adults to be baptized if they have not already been baptized.
As for the mode, the position of many reformed churches is that the mode is not essential to baptism; therefore, immersion, sprinkling, our pouring is acceptable.
So infants can be baptized in any of those modes, and would you see the Adult baptism in same way that the infant one? Both now part of the NC, or is it different as the adult now has made a profession of their faith in Jesus now?
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I would understand the difference between the baptized child and the baptized adult like the difference between Abraham and Isaac when they received the sign of circumcision. Abraham received it after he believed God and was credited with righteousness, but Isaac received it before. Ishmael also received it, and never believed.
When Abraham received the sign, he was clearly already a believer. When Isaac received it, it was unclear as to whether he would follow in the footsteps of faith of his father. This did not affect the application of the sign. The sign was to set apart members of the believing community; children were included in this community until they proved by unbelief that they did not belong. The application of the sign was independent of God's sovereign elective purposes.
It must also be noted that not only was the sign of circumcision a sign of promised blessings, but it was also a call to a holy life. Recall how the Lord urged his people to be 'circumcised in heart'; that is, to truly live as you have been called.
I see baptism in much the same way. While there are no explicit mentions of infant baptism in the NT, the lack of a prohibition and the similarities between baptism and circumcision (both are signs and seals which point to Christ's work, one looks forward, the other backward) leads me to believe that it is acceptable to baptize infants as long as one parent is a believer. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
The sign of baptism recognizes what the Lord has done. In the case of the newly converted adult, it recognizes the fact that God has already washed them clean of sin, grafted them into his family, set them apart, and given them his Holy Spirit. For the covenant child, I see at as also a recognition of what God has done - he has placed that child into a believing household (independent of the child's choice) which should ensure that the child has the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond in faith. The baptism of a child is also a call on that child to live a holy life and respond in personal faith to the gospel offer, which is signified in their baptism.
As for their part in the NC, I will respond to that later.
Best regards,
Izaak
Thanks, as I am still having a hard time seeing any real difference between how you view children under the external manifestation of the NC, and How we would do so, as both of us do agree to raise the children under the teachings of the scriptures and the assembled church.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I don't think we view the treatment of children differently.
We view the sign of baptism differently. You see it as applicable only to those who have professed faith and are assumed to be truly partakers of the new covenant; that is, for the elect/regenerate only. I see it as a sign for those who are 'disciples'; and my understanding that the children of church members qualify as 'disciples'; hence, the sign can be applied to them.
Being a sign of the NW to them, there would be no real value to them until/unless they receive Jesus as Lord and are saved then, correct?
- Status
