Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Right...but practically speaking, the out-workings of credo theology run across the grain in many ways. Do you consider that covenantal blessing on your children? Are they 'holy'?
"Do you consider your children to be Christians?"
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
The children of one believer and one unbeliever is "holy" in that they are legitimate. Any other talk of "holy" children is nonsense unless you affirm presumptive regeneration. They are under the blessings of the Covenant of Grace and God has given general promises to all families of believers whether baptist or paedo, but they are no more holy than anyone else. Any supposed holy condition does not do away with their personal need for individual faith and repentance.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Wrong. Good try trying to discredit me by using PR. In an earlier post w/ Ben Z, I believe post 117, he mentioned the same treatment you do above; please enlighten me with some historic treatments along the line u are positing-outside of J. Gill.
Let me ask u, were the goblets used in temple worship, 'holy' vessels?
1 Kings 8:4
4 And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up.
1 Chronicles 22:19
19 Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God; arise therefore, and build ye the sanctuary of the Lord God, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and the holy vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name of the Lord.
2 Chronicles 5:5
5 And they brought up the ark, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, these did the priests and the Levites bring up.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 8:4–2 Ch 5:5.
Never said that this 'holiness' does away with a need for personal faith and repentance-however, there is a distinction between my unregenerate child and the devil worshipper's child down the street-given the covenantal commitment this family has taken-which God sees and hears. To that, which the credo disregards. Hence, there is a difference.
So, as a credo, your kids are not 'vipers in diapers'? On one hand they are blessed via the C of G and on the other, what? or is there not 'on the other hand' hand for you, because most credo's falter here. They refuse to side with the Paedobaptist and how we see our children in relation to God and covenant. You are seeming to take a different route, If I am understanding you, now. Most all credo's say that there children are enemies of God until that time when they confess and are baptized-yet they still confuse the terms when it comes to prayer etc. even though Christ Himself tells us that God 'does not hear the prayers of sinners', i.e. those outside of Christ and yet u give them the impression that God does hear (and I am not speaking omnisciently).
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Rev. Strange, I did some more careful thinking and discovered a serious category error in how I presented my argument. Thank you for the respectful yet firm correction. It probably won't be the last time that it is needed.
What practical difference is there between a believing baptist family and a believing Presbyterian family, both of whom raise their children up in the Lord?
Nothing.
But somehow some Presbyterians says that baptism benefits them extra in some magical manner. What does the water add?
Nothing.
But somehow some Presbyterians says that baptism benefits them extra in some magical manner. What does the water add?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Will St. John Chrysostom do?
From Homily XIX on Corinthians:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xx.html
And an article concerning same with relevant passages quoted:
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/chrysostom-on-1-cor-714/
That was my question! Over time I saw these things:
The command to include children of believing parents into covenantal standing was never abrogated, therefore baptizing them adds obedience, and therefore blessing;
The realization that these kiddos are to be considered, from the beginning, fellow members of God's household surely promotes a difference in our dealings with them and how we view their standing;
The realization of children that God ordained their being added into this holy community will surely add a weightiness to their comprehension of who they are and their obligations and duty to God and the church.
The fact that God ordains that infants and children receive the sign puts the focus on God, and takes it off of us. Baptism is God's testimony to the one baptized, not the testimony of the infant or adult. This should be a great cause for worship and thanksgiving!
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
After reading some of the most recent comments here, I keep thinking of the section on infant baptism from James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, and how he addresses this dilemma so expertly. Here's a sample of some of his propositions, which touch on nearly everything discussed in this thread so far:
————
The covenant of grace, as revealed by God at different periods for the salvation of His people, has been essentially the same in former and in later times, and has always comprehended infants within it.
————
If the Church of God, made up of His professing people, be one and the same society at all times, and under all its different dispensations, then the proof that infants were members of it at one period must be a proof that they are competent to be members of it at any subsequent period; unless, indeed, some express and positive enactment can be produced, altering the charter of the society, and excluding, as incompetent to be admitted by the new and altered terms of the deed, those formerly comprehended within it. If no such proof of alteration in the charter or constitution of the society can be produced,—if the society itself remains the same in character and terms of admission as before,—then the proof that infants were once its members may suffice for proof that they are still competent to be so.
————
The opponents of infant Baptism feel considerable difficulty in giving any explicit or consistent explanation of the relation sustained by infants either to the covenant or to the Church. Some of them deny absolutely that infants have any place either in the covenant or in the visible Church as members; while others of them hesitate about such a sweeping denial in the face of the strong Scripture evidence available to establish the fact, and rather consider infants as possessed of an inchoate and undeveloped right to be members, and as put under the care of the Church in order to be prepared for claiming and exercising the full right afterwards. But the covenant state and the Church state of infants, once fairly established, as they can readily be from Scripture, and the absence of any express bar interposed by Divine authority to the contrary, seem unquestionably to lead to a conclusion in favour of infant Baptism, even were there no further evidence that could be adduced in support of it. But there is much additional evidence at hand.
————
That God may act towards infants in a way of sovereignty, without regard to their connection with their parents, may be true. But when He deals with them, and desires at the same time to manifest to us His rule or method of dealing, He does so on the principle of representation; a principle revealed to us both in His providential and spiritual economies. And such is unquestionably the principle according to which, in the constitution of the Old Testament Church, infants were dealt with. God made His covenant with infants as well as with adults; and the way in which He did so was never in connection with any personal act of theirs, which was impossible, but in connection with their filial relationship. God made His Church to include infants among its members as well as adult believers; and this too He did not in connection with their personal act, which was impossible, but in connection with the act of their parents. The membership of the father was counted to the infant; and the circumcision of the father gave a right to the infant to be circumcised also.
The principle of representation found under the Old Testament is the very principle introduced by the Apostle to explain the position and character of children in the case where no more than one parent is a believer and member of the Church. That the contrasted terms, "unclean" and "holy," are to be understood in the Old Testament sense of not set apart and set apart to the service or fellowship of God, seems to be undoubted. And the assertion of the Apostle is, that one of the parents being a believer, although the other is not, avails, so that the infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His Church.
————
What is the virtue or efficacy of the ordinance when administered to infants incapable of faith, although not incapable of being made partakers in the grace which the Spirit confers? In entering on the consideration of this delicate and difficult subject, it is necessary, in order to clear our way to it, to lay down one or two preliminary propositions of much importance in the discussion.
First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...
Second, The virtue of infant Baptism, whatever that may be, is not more mysterious than the virtue ascribed to adult Baptism, although it may have the appearance of being so. It is a very common idea, that the difficulty in framing an explanation of the efficacy of Baptism in the case of infants, is peculiar to the ordinance in its administration to them, and does not attach to it in its administration to adults. I believe that this is not the case. There may be greater difficulty in gathering from the statements of Scripture what the virtue of Baptism really is in its application to infants, than in ascertaining what it is in its application to adults. But to explain the supernatural virtue itself is just as difficult in the one case as in the other, and simply from this reason, that it is supernatural. Up to a certain point it is easy enough to explain the efficacy of adult Baptism, but beyond that fixed point it is impossible to explain it. That point is where the natural efficacy of the ordinance passes into the supernatural efficacy.
————
Full text here. See section on Infant Baptism and Objections.
————
The covenant of grace, as revealed by God at different periods for the salvation of His people, has been essentially the same in former and in later times, and has always comprehended infants within it.
————
If the Church of God, made up of His professing people, be one and the same society at all times, and under all its different dispensations, then the proof that infants were members of it at one period must be a proof that they are competent to be members of it at any subsequent period; unless, indeed, some express and positive enactment can be produced, altering the charter of the society, and excluding, as incompetent to be admitted by the new and altered terms of the deed, those formerly comprehended within it. If no such proof of alteration in the charter or constitution of the society can be produced,—if the society itself remains the same in character and terms of admission as before,—then the proof that infants were once its members may suffice for proof that they are still competent to be so.
————
The opponents of infant Baptism feel considerable difficulty in giving any explicit or consistent explanation of the relation sustained by infants either to the covenant or to the Church. Some of them deny absolutely that infants have any place either in the covenant or in the visible Church as members; while others of them hesitate about such a sweeping denial in the face of the strong Scripture evidence available to establish the fact, and rather consider infants as possessed of an inchoate and undeveloped right to be members, and as put under the care of the Church in order to be prepared for claiming and exercising the full right afterwards. But the covenant state and the Church state of infants, once fairly established, as they can readily be from Scripture, and the absence of any express bar interposed by Divine authority to the contrary, seem unquestionably to lead to a conclusion in favour of infant Baptism, even were there no further evidence that could be adduced in support of it. But there is much additional evidence at hand.
————
That God may act towards infants in a way of sovereignty, without regard to their connection with their parents, may be true. But when He deals with them, and desires at the same time to manifest to us His rule or method of dealing, He does so on the principle of representation; a principle revealed to us both in His providential and spiritual economies. And such is unquestionably the principle according to which, in the constitution of the Old Testament Church, infants were dealt with. God made His covenant with infants as well as with adults; and the way in which He did so was never in connection with any personal act of theirs, which was impossible, but in connection with their filial relationship. God made His Church to include infants among its members as well as adult believers; and this too He did not in connection with their personal act, which was impossible, but in connection with the act of their parents. The membership of the father was counted to the infant; and the circumcision of the father gave a right to the infant to be circumcised also.
The principle of representation found under the Old Testament is the very principle introduced by the Apostle to explain the position and character of children in the case where no more than one parent is a believer and member of the Church. That the contrasted terms, "unclean" and "holy," are to be understood in the Old Testament sense of not set apart and set apart to the service or fellowship of God, seems to be undoubted. And the assertion of the Apostle is, that one of the parents being a believer, although the other is not, avails, so that the infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His Church.
————
What is the virtue or efficacy of the ordinance when administered to infants incapable of faith, although not incapable of being made partakers in the grace which the Spirit confers? In entering on the consideration of this delicate and difficult subject, it is necessary, in order to clear our way to it, to lay down one or two preliminary propositions of much importance in the discussion.
First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...
Second, The virtue of infant Baptism, whatever that may be, is not more mysterious than the virtue ascribed to adult Baptism, although it may have the appearance of being so. It is a very common idea, that the difficulty in framing an explanation of the efficacy of Baptism in the case of infants, is peculiar to the ordinance in its administration to them, and does not attach to it in its administration to adults. I believe that this is not the case. There may be greater difficulty in gathering from the statements of Scripture what the virtue of Baptism really is in its application to infants, than in ascertaining what it is in its application to adults. But to explain the supernatural virtue itself is just as difficult in the one case as in the other, and simply from this reason, that it is supernatural. Up to a certain point it is easy enough to explain the efficacy of adult Baptism, but beyond that fixed point it is impossible to explain it. That point is where the natural efficacy of the ordinance passes into the supernatural efficacy.
————
Full text here. See section on Infant Baptism and Objections.
Thanks. That is good stuff.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry Scott,Ben,
Do u have any historic citations ascribing such a position on this verse? I'd be willing to entertain it, but up until now, this is a first for me.
Being largely illiterate, I haven't read much in the church fathers and thus cannot cite. I know I've heard the vewpoint several times, but cannot say exactly where or when. I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up, though, since there is nothing new under the sun.
If this thread is still alive tonight I'll add more. For now I must go and work for a penny.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Nothing? And in this, there rests the difference between the credo camp and Presbyterian
WCF ch 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.
The sacrament is not an empty rite...
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
John Owen
“The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be “blessed with faithful Abraham,” or that “the blessing of Abraham,” promised in the covenant, “might come upon them,” Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5…Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves…In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?” (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)
http://www.semperreformanda.com/2018/01/the-benefit-of-baptism/
Calvins Catechism helps here:
Q321-346
http://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/calvins-catechism/
Heidelberg Cat Q74
Question 74
Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer 74
Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew 19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3; Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians 2:11-13) in the new covenant.
The 39 Articles:
XXVII. Of Baptisme.
Baptisme is not only a signe of profession, and marke of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened: but is also a signe of regeneration or newe byrth, whereby as by an instrument, they that receaue baptisme rightly, are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgeuenesse of sinne, and of our adoption to be the sonnes of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: fayth is confyrmed: and grace increased by vertue of prayer vnto God. The baptisme of young children, is in any wyse to be retayned in the Churche, as most agreable with the institution of Christe.
WLC Q35
Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.
Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.
Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.
WSC
Quest. 94. What is baptism?
Ans. 94. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,(1) doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.(2)
(1) Matt. 28:19.
(2) Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27.
Quest. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
Ans. 95. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him;(1) but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.(2)
“The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be “blessed with faithful Abraham,” or that “the blessing of Abraham,” promised in the covenant, “might come upon them,” Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5…Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves…In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?” (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)
http://www.semperreformanda.com/2018/01/the-benefit-of-baptism/
Calvins Catechism helps here:
Q321-346
http://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/calvins-catechism/
Heidelberg Cat Q74
Question 74
Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer 74
Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew 19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3; Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians 2:11-13) in the new covenant.
The 39 Articles:
XXVII. Of Baptisme.
Baptisme is not only a signe of profession, and marke of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened: but is also a signe of regeneration or newe byrth, whereby as by an instrument, they that receaue baptisme rightly, are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgeuenesse of sinne, and of our adoption to be the sonnes of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: fayth is confyrmed: and grace increased by vertue of prayer vnto God. The baptisme of young children, is in any wyse to be retayned in the Churche, as most agreable with the institution of Christe.
WLC Q35
Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.
Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.
Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.
WSC
Quest. 94. What is baptism?
Ans. 94. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,(1) doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.(2)
(1) Matt. 28:19.
(2) Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27.
Quest. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
Ans. 95. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him;(1) but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.(2)
Last edited:
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
This is about the third, albeit brief, exposure to Bannerman. I think I would do well to read him.........
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Greg,
U must!
U must!
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
More from Bannerman on a really important element of this discussion (see below). Be careful reading Bannerman, though; you may just have to join the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) or Presbyterian Reformed Church after you get through his works.
First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...
It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule. The ordinance of Baptism is no more to be judged of from its ministration to children, than is the ordinance of preaching to be judged of from its ministration to children. The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnessed in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no farther than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.
With adults, Baptism is not regeneration or justification, but the seal of both to the regenerated and justified man. And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be regarded as accomplishing without their faith, what in the case of adults with their faith, it fails to accomplish. In other words, infant Baptism is not infant regeneration or justification, any more than in the instance of adults. The Baptism with water to a child is not the same thing as the birth by the Spirit. It is not a supernatural charm. It is not a magic spell to confer the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. Sacraments in the case of infants, as in the case of adults, have no mysterious and supernatural power of their own to impart, by the bare administration of them, spiritual life. Let us endeavour to understand what are the effects of Baptism in the case of infants.
Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a right of property in the covenant of grace; which may in after life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right of possession.
In regard to this matter, I would have recourse again to a distinction, which in other discussions we have found it necessary to adopt, and which has more than once helped us to clear our way to a right understanding of the question in debate. A man may have a right of property in an estate, and yet a stranger may be in possession of it; and he may require to add to his right of property a right of possession, acquired by making good the former in a court of law, before the stranger is extruded, and he himself introduced into the enjoyment of the inheritance. Now, to apply this distinction to the case in hand, a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace is conferred by the gift and promise of God, made over to every man who hears the Gospel message addressed to him. "And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." This right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace, belonging to every man, is written down in these words. The charter which every man has, bearing in it inscribed his right of property to these blessings, is the revealed Word of God. This is the first and superior title. But in itself it is incomplete, and inadequate to put him into the personal possession of his heritage. It requires to be supplemented by another title, before he can actually enjoy the salvation so made over to him by right of property, and certified by God's word and promise. To his right of property there must be added a right of possession; and this latter is obtained by means of his own personal act of faith, appropriating to himself the salvation before made over to him. The Word of God addressed to him, giving him a right of property in the blessings of the covenant, and his faith receiving that Word, giving him a right of possession, complete the full and perfect title to the blessing; and both together admit him to the enjoyment of it.
First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...
It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule. The ordinance of Baptism is no more to be judged of from its ministration to children, than is the ordinance of preaching to be judged of from its ministration to children. The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnessed in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no farther than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.
With adults, Baptism is not regeneration or justification, but the seal of both to the regenerated and justified man. And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be regarded as accomplishing without their faith, what in the case of adults with their faith, it fails to accomplish. In other words, infant Baptism is not infant regeneration or justification, any more than in the instance of adults. The Baptism with water to a child is not the same thing as the birth by the Spirit. It is not a supernatural charm. It is not a magic spell to confer the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. Sacraments in the case of infants, as in the case of adults, have no mysterious and supernatural power of their own to impart, by the bare administration of them, spiritual life. Let us endeavour to understand what are the effects of Baptism in the case of infants.
Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a right of property in the covenant of grace; which may in after life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right of possession.
In regard to this matter, I would have recourse again to a distinction, which in other discussions we have found it necessary to adopt, and which has more than once helped us to clear our way to a right understanding of the question in debate. A man may have a right of property in an estate, and yet a stranger may be in possession of it; and he may require to add to his right of property a right of possession, acquired by making good the former in a court of law, before the stranger is extruded, and he himself introduced into the enjoyment of the inheritance. Now, to apply this distinction to the case in hand, a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace is conferred by the gift and promise of God, made over to every man who hears the Gospel message addressed to him. "And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." This right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace, belonging to every man, is written down in these words. The charter which every man has, bearing in it inscribed his right of property to these blessings, is the revealed Word of God. This is the first and superior title. But in itself it is incomplete, and inadequate to put him into the personal possession of his heritage. It requires to be supplemented by another title, before he can actually enjoy the salvation so made over to him by right of property, and certified by God's word and promise. To his right of property there must be added a right of possession; and this latter is obtained by means of his own personal act of faith, appropriating to himself the salvation before made over to him. The Word of God addressed to him, giving him a right of property in the blessings of the covenant, and his faith receiving that Word, giving him a right of possession, complete the full and perfect title to the blessing; and both together admit him to the enjoyment of it.
I understand on that, as I am saying what my position on this issue is, and seeing what the scriptures declare to me regarding just who would be elect children.
I am just following someone like a Spurgeon, whose view on children and election would be mine own. You are correct, this has been discussed and had those 2 main views expressed, so would be an area that literally is known for sure only to God.
The Paedo language though does seem to support in the notion that those infants are being baptized into the COG, and are now to be seen as actual members of the NC now, which is not what Credo language would be saying.
Yes, as being under external blessings of being in a local church, being raised up on the scriptures, but still need to have a profession of faith in Christ to be seen as being "holy" in the sense saved and under the NC.
he seems to be making the case that the ordinance of the water baptism avails nothing if not accompanied by and being shown to have a valid profession of faith in Christ.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I believe it would be beneficial if we see the remainder of what Bannerman says on the issue:
"The supernatural efficacy connected with Baptism, and owing to the presence of the Spirit of God with the ordinance, is an efficacy competent to infants as much as to adults. Even upon their unconscious natures the Spirit is free to work His work of grace, not less than upon the natures of adults whose understandings and hearts are consciously consenting to the work. The work of regeneration by the Holy Ghost is a work which it is as easy for Him to accomplish upon the infant of days as upon the man of mature age,—upon the child who enjoys but the rudiments of his moral and intellectual life, as upon the adult whose moral and intellectual powers are co-operating in and consenting to the gracious change. But broadly marked although the regeneration of the infant and the regeneration of the adult be, by the absence in the one instance, and the presence in the other, of a capacity moral and intellectual for faith and repentance, yet it is never to be lost sight of or forgotten that the work is the work of the Spirit of God, and not to be explained on any natural principle either in the former case or in the latter. The presence of his complete and perfect intellectual and moral powers in the case of the baptized adult, and the exercise of those powers in connection with the truths represented and signified in the Sacrament, afford no adequate explanation of the sacramental grace or efficacy connected with the ordinance in consequence of the power of the Spirit in it. At this point we have got beyond the limits of the natural, and into the region of the supernatural; and it is not more and not less supernatural in the case of infants than in the case of adults. Sacramental grace, properly so called, is a mystery of which there is no explanation, except that it is the grace of the Spirit of God. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the believing adult, and you admit a mystery, which the presence and active exercise of his moral and intellectual powers do not in the least explain. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the infant incapable of believing, and you admit a mystery too, but one not more mysterious than the former, and not more difficult to explain, from the absence or incapacity of his moral and intellectual faculties. In one word, the efficacy of infant Baptism, whatever that may be shown from Scripture to be, is not more mysterious than the sacramental virtue ascribed to adult Baptism.
III. There seems to be reason for inferring that, in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with that regeneration.
To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have already asserted, gives an interest in the Church of Christ as its members. To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have also already asserted, gives a right of property in the covenant of grace, which may, by their personal faith in after life, be completed by a right of possession, so that they shall enter on the full enjoyment of all the blessings sealed to them by their previous Baptism. And beyond these two positions, in so far as infants are concerned, it is perhaps hazardous to go, in the absence of any very explicit Scripture evidence; and certainly, in going further, it were the reverse of wisdom to dogmatize. But I think that there is some reason to add to these positions the third one, which I have just announced, namely, that in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with such regeneration. I would limit myself to the case of baptized infants regenerated in infancy,—a class of course to be distinguished broadly from baptized infants who never at any time in their lives experience a saving change; and also to be distinguished from baptized infants who experience that change, not in infancy, but in maturer years. There are these three cases, plainly to be distinguished from one another. There are, first, those infants baptized with an outward Baptism who never at any period come to know a saving change of state or nature. To such Baptism may be an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant of grace, never completed by a right of possession, and therefore given to them in vain; but it can be nothing more. There are, secondly, those infants baptized with water in infancy, but not regenerated in infancy by the Spirit of God, whose saving change of state and nature is experienced by them in after life. To such Baptism is an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant, at the moment of its administration; and in after years, when born again by the Spirit through faith, Baptism becomes to them, in addition, the seal, as it had previously been the sign, of the covenant,—their right of property having been completed by the right of possession, and the Sacrament, although long past, having become in consequence a present grace to their souls. But there are, thirdly, those infants baptized with water in infancy and also regenerated in infancy; and with regard to them I think there is reason to believe that this Baptism with water stands connected ordinarily with the Baptism of the Spirit.
That many an infant is sanctified and called by God even from its mother’s womb, and undergoes, while yet incapable of faith or repentance, that blessed change of nature which is wrought by the Spirit of God, there can be no reason to doubt. There are multitudes born into this world who die ere their infancy is past,—who open their unconscious eyes upon the light only to shut them again ere they have gazed their fill,—and who, in the brief moment of their earthly being, know nothing of life save the sorrow which marks both its beginning and its close. And with regard to such infants dying in infancy, there is a blessed hope, which the Scriptures give us to entertain, that they are not lost but saved,—that they suffer, and sorrow, and die here from their interest in Adam’s sin, but that, not knowing sin by their own personal act or thought, they are redeemed through their interest in Christ’s righteousness. But saved though infants dying in infancy may be, yet there is no exemption, even in their case, from the universal law of God’s spiritual dispensation towards men, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Within the brief hour of an infant’s life, and ere the unconscious babe passes through the avenue of death into the Divine presence, must that mighty change of regeneration be undergone, which none but the Spirit of God can work; and among the rudiments of its intellectual and moral life, sleeping in the germ, there must be planted the seed of that higher life, which in heaven is destined to expand and endure through all eternity. And where, in the brief history of the young life and early death of these baptized little ones, shall we say that this mysterious work is wrought? At what moment, rather than another, is this regeneration by the Spirit accomplished? We dare not limit the free Spirit of God. The beginning of the life that comes from Him may be contemporaneous with the commencement of natural life in the infant, or it may be contemporaneous with its close. The Spirit of God is free to do His own work at His own time. But in the appointment of an ordinance to signify and represent that very work,—in the command to administer that ordinance as a sign to the little infant during the brief hour of its earthly life and ere it passes into eternity, there does seem to me some ground to believe that in such a case, of infants regenerated in infancy, the sign is meant to be connected with the thing signified,—that the moment of its Baptism is the appointed moment of its regeneration too,—and that, ordinarily, its birth by water and its birth by the Spirit of God are bound in one. It is Baptism which gives the baptized infant a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace; and when the infant is placed,—not from its own fault,—in such circumstances as to bar the possibility of its completing its title to those blessings by seeking through its personal faith a right of possession in them also, then it is consistent with the analogy of God’s appointments in other departments of His Church, that in such extraordinary cases the absence of a right of possession should not exclude from the blessings, but that the right of property alone should avail to secure them; or in other words, that in the case of infants regenerated and dying in infancy, their Baptism should coincide with their regeneration.
"The supernatural efficacy connected with Baptism, and owing to the presence of the Spirit of God with the ordinance, is an efficacy competent to infants as much as to adults. Even upon their unconscious natures the Spirit is free to work His work of grace, not less than upon the natures of adults whose understandings and hearts are consciously consenting to the work. The work of regeneration by the Holy Ghost is a work which it is as easy for Him to accomplish upon the infant of days as upon the man of mature age,—upon the child who enjoys but the rudiments of his moral and intellectual life, as upon the adult whose moral and intellectual powers are co-operating in and consenting to the gracious change. But broadly marked although the regeneration of the infant and the regeneration of the adult be, by the absence in the one instance, and the presence in the other, of a capacity moral and intellectual for faith and repentance, yet it is never to be lost sight of or forgotten that the work is the work of the Spirit of God, and not to be explained on any natural principle either in the former case or in the latter. The presence of his complete and perfect intellectual and moral powers in the case of the baptized adult, and the exercise of those powers in connection with the truths represented and signified in the Sacrament, afford no adequate explanation of the sacramental grace or efficacy connected with the ordinance in consequence of the power of the Spirit in it. At this point we have got beyond the limits of the natural, and into the region of the supernatural; and it is not more and not less supernatural in the case of infants than in the case of adults. Sacramental grace, properly so called, is a mystery of which there is no explanation, except that it is the grace of the Spirit of God. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the believing adult, and you admit a mystery, which the presence and active exercise of his moral and intellectual powers do not in the least explain. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the infant incapable of believing, and you admit a mystery too, but one not more mysterious than the former, and not more difficult to explain, from the absence or incapacity of his moral and intellectual faculties. In one word, the efficacy of infant Baptism, whatever that may be shown from Scripture to be, is not more mysterious than the sacramental virtue ascribed to adult Baptism.
III. There seems to be reason for inferring that, in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with that regeneration.
To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have already asserted, gives an interest in the Church of Christ as its members. To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have also already asserted, gives a right of property in the covenant of grace, which may, by their personal faith in after life, be completed by a right of possession, so that they shall enter on the full enjoyment of all the blessings sealed to them by their previous Baptism. And beyond these two positions, in so far as infants are concerned, it is perhaps hazardous to go, in the absence of any very explicit Scripture evidence; and certainly, in going further, it were the reverse of wisdom to dogmatize. But I think that there is some reason to add to these positions the third one, which I have just announced, namely, that in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with such regeneration. I would limit myself to the case of baptized infants regenerated in infancy,—a class of course to be distinguished broadly from baptized infants who never at any time in their lives experience a saving change; and also to be distinguished from baptized infants who experience that change, not in infancy, but in maturer years. There are these three cases, plainly to be distinguished from one another. There are, first, those infants baptized with an outward Baptism who never at any period come to know a saving change of state or nature. To such Baptism may be an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant of grace, never completed by a right of possession, and therefore given to them in vain; but it can be nothing more. There are, secondly, those infants baptized with water in infancy, but not regenerated in infancy by the Spirit of God, whose saving change of state and nature is experienced by them in after life. To such Baptism is an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant, at the moment of its administration; and in after years, when born again by the Spirit through faith, Baptism becomes to them, in addition, the seal, as it had previously been the sign, of the covenant,—their right of property having been completed by the right of possession, and the Sacrament, although long past, having become in consequence a present grace to their souls. But there are, thirdly, those infants baptized with water in infancy and also regenerated in infancy; and with regard to them I think there is reason to believe that this Baptism with water stands connected ordinarily with the Baptism of the Spirit.
That many an infant is sanctified and called by God even from its mother’s womb, and undergoes, while yet incapable of faith or repentance, that blessed change of nature which is wrought by the Spirit of God, there can be no reason to doubt. There are multitudes born into this world who die ere their infancy is past,—who open their unconscious eyes upon the light only to shut them again ere they have gazed their fill,—and who, in the brief moment of their earthly being, know nothing of life save the sorrow which marks both its beginning and its close. And with regard to such infants dying in infancy, there is a blessed hope, which the Scriptures give us to entertain, that they are not lost but saved,—that they suffer, and sorrow, and die here from their interest in Adam’s sin, but that, not knowing sin by their own personal act or thought, they are redeemed through their interest in Christ’s righteousness. But saved though infants dying in infancy may be, yet there is no exemption, even in their case, from the universal law of God’s spiritual dispensation towards men, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Within the brief hour of an infant’s life, and ere the unconscious babe passes through the avenue of death into the Divine presence, must that mighty change of regeneration be undergone, which none but the Spirit of God can work; and among the rudiments of its intellectual and moral life, sleeping in the germ, there must be planted the seed of that higher life, which in heaven is destined to expand and endure through all eternity. And where, in the brief history of the young life and early death of these baptized little ones, shall we say that this mysterious work is wrought? At what moment, rather than another, is this regeneration by the Spirit accomplished? We dare not limit the free Spirit of God. The beginning of the life that comes from Him may be contemporaneous with the commencement of natural life in the infant, or it may be contemporaneous with its close. The Spirit of God is free to do His own work at His own time. But in the appointment of an ordinance to signify and represent that very work,—in the command to administer that ordinance as a sign to the little infant during the brief hour of its earthly life and ere it passes into eternity, there does seem to me some ground to believe that in such a case, of infants regenerated in infancy, the sign is meant to be connected with the thing signified,—that the moment of its Baptism is the appointed moment of its regeneration too,—and that, ordinarily, its birth by water and its birth by the Spirit of God are bound in one. It is Baptism which gives the baptized infant a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace; and when the infant is placed,—not from its own fault,—in such circumstances as to bar the possibility of its completing its title to those blessings by seeking through its personal faith a right of possession in them also, then it is consistent with the analogy of God’s appointments in other departments of His Church, that in such extraordinary cases the absence of a right of possession should not exclude from the blessings, but that the right of property alone should avail to secure them; or in other words, that in the case of infants regenerated and dying in infancy, their Baptism should coincide with their regeneration.
Do you see a distinction between children asserting to Jesus and infants who cannot though?And does that mean just baptized infants have the hope of salvation, due to being somehow seen as being in the COG now?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The efficacy is not necessarily tied to the moment of the administration--though there is no logical reason why it cannot.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
"1. The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the moment of administration; but though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii. 5, 8."
~Robert Shaw on ch 28:6
"(4.) Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as circumcision signified and bound to precisely what baptism does; and since baptism has taken precisely the place of circumcision, it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. The only ground upon which this conclusion could be obviated would be that Christ in the gospel explicitly turns them out of their ancient birth-right in the Church."
Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 472.
"(a.) That baptism does not only signify, but really and truly seal and convey, grace to those to whom it belongs according to covenant—that is, to the elect.
(b.) But that this actual conveyance of the grace sealed is not tied to the moment in which the sacrament is administered, but is made according to the precise provisions as to time and circumstance predetermined in the eternal covenant of grace. So property may be sealed and conveyed in a deed to a minor, but the minor may not actually enter into the fruition of it until such time and upon such conditions as are predetermined in his father’s will.
(c.) The efficacy of the sacrament is not due to any spiritual or magical quality communicated to the water.
(d.) But this efficacy does result (1) from the moral power of the truth which the rite symbolizes. (2.) From the fact that it is a seal of the covenant of grace, and a legal form of investing those persons embraced in the covenant with the graces promised therein. (3.) From the personal presence and sovereignly gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses the sacrament as his instrument and medium.
(e.) That through these channels the grace signified is really conveyed to the persons to whom, according to the divine counsel, it truly belongs, yet this grace and the influences of the Holy Ghost are not so tied to the sacrament that they are never, or even infrequently, conveyed in any other way. The very grace conveyed by the sacrament must be possessed by the adult as a prerequisite to baptism, and is often subsequently experienced through other channels."
Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 477–478.
~Robert Shaw on ch 28:6
"(4.) Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as circumcision signified and bound to precisely what baptism does; and since baptism has taken precisely the place of circumcision, it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. The only ground upon which this conclusion could be obviated would be that Christ in the gospel explicitly turns them out of their ancient birth-right in the Church."
Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 472.
"(a.) That baptism does not only signify, but really and truly seal and convey, grace to those to whom it belongs according to covenant—that is, to the elect.
(b.) But that this actual conveyance of the grace sealed is not tied to the moment in which the sacrament is administered, but is made according to the precise provisions as to time and circumstance predetermined in the eternal covenant of grace. So property may be sealed and conveyed in a deed to a minor, but the minor may not actually enter into the fruition of it until such time and upon such conditions as are predetermined in his father’s will.
(c.) The efficacy of the sacrament is not due to any spiritual or magical quality communicated to the water.
(d.) But this efficacy does result (1) from the moral power of the truth which the rite symbolizes. (2.) From the fact that it is a seal of the covenant of grace, and a legal form of investing those persons embraced in the covenant with the graces promised therein. (3.) From the personal presence and sovereignly gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses the sacrament as his instrument and medium.
(e.) That through these channels the grace signified is really conveyed to the persons to whom, according to the divine counsel, it truly belongs, yet this grace and the influences of the Holy Ghost are not so tied to the sacrament that they are never, or even infrequently, conveyed in any other way. The very grace conveyed by the sacrament must be possessed by the adult as a prerequisite to baptism, and is often subsequently experienced through other channels."
Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 477–478.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
"The word used in the New Testament for the holy ordinances which we call sacraments is mystery, implying that there is in the holy rite more than meets the eye in the visible element. As means of grace the sacraments are closely related to the word of God. The sacrament, indeed, has no independent existence, and cannot be administered apart from the word. It also teaches and imparts no new thing, but only presents in another form what has been already set forth in the word. The word has all that is essential to the sacrament, and the sacrament is, to use a phrase of the Reformers borrowed from Augustine, a verbum visibile, a visible word. ‘Faith’, says Durham, ‘takes Christ in the word, and strikes hands with Him in the sacrament.’ The sacrament, therefore, comes after the word, as helping to secure the end for which the word is given".
John Macpherson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 106.
"Erroneous views of the meaning of baptism appeared early in the Church. The sacrament of regeneration was spoken of by some of the early Fathers in a way that was suitable only if used of regeneration itself. This tendency, developed into a dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, is current not only in the Romish Church, but also in the High Church section of the Church of England. The error results from confounding the sign with the thing signified, and thinking of the sacrament as conferring grace by some power in itself. While opposing this error, we must guard against the contrary extreme of the Socinians and others (perhaps Zwingli should be included), who look upon baptism as nothing more than an initiatory rite, for if this be all, it is then no means of grace. [See Confession of Faith, chap. xxviii. § 1; Author’s Handbook, p. 150.]"
John Macpherson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 108–109.
John Macpherson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 106.
"Erroneous views of the meaning of baptism appeared early in the Church. The sacrament of regeneration was spoken of by some of the early Fathers in a way that was suitable only if used of regeneration itself. This tendency, developed into a dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, is current not only in the Romish Church, but also in the High Church section of the Church of England. The error results from confounding the sign with the thing signified, and thinking of the sacrament as conferring grace by some power in itself. While opposing this error, we must guard against the contrary extreme of the Socinians and others (perhaps Zwingli should be included), who look upon baptism as nothing more than an initiatory rite, for if this be all, it is then no means of grace. [See Confession of Faith, chap. xxviii. § 1; Author’s Handbook, p. 150.]"
John Macpherson, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 108–109.
Baptists tend to call them ordinances, is there really some differences or not?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Big difference. Presbyterians see the sacraments as means of actual grace, i.e physical representations of the gospel.
However, Presbyterians call them ordinances as well, for the puritans often called them ordinances more than sacraments, though they meant both as one and the same. However, their meaning in comparrison to Baptist theology differs greatly.
However, Presbyterians call them ordinances as well, for the puritans often called them ordinances more than sacraments, though they meant both as one and the same. However, their meaning in comparrison to Baptist theology differs greatly.
Last edited:
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Raise Up Your Covenant Children as Christians (Christian Parenting in the Church)
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1219162170
I don't really get the talk about the "efficacy of baptism" - what exactly does it do?
If we speak of children of believers later believing, it is due to the influence of Christian nurture and not a magical sprinkle of water on the head. What exactly does the water add except for real or perceived obedience?
Are children raised up in a Christian Presbyterian home better off than children raised up in a Christian baptist home given that both provide Christian nurture to their children? I don't see the water adding anything? In fact, many Presbyterian denominations have gone astray, and their baptized children quickly fell away from sound doctrine.
In the NT we see baptism being a sign of belief and repentance.
I have heard one Presbyterian man speak of the baptized infants of believers going to heaven if they die in infancy whereas the infant children of nonbelievers go to hell if they die in infancy, but this seems to have no warrant in Scripture and seems to lend a magical belief to baptism.
So what does baptism DO except to symbolize one's new birth? I do not see it DOING anything except representing an inner reality, an inner reality that we cannot be sure of in infants. You guys seem to put magical power into the sacraments. While it is not full-blown sacerdotalism, it is a sacramentalism.
If we speak of children of believers later believing, it is due to the influence of Christian nurture and not a magical sprinkle of water on the head. What exactly does the water add except for real or perceived obedience?
Are children raised up in a Christian Presbyterian home better off than children raised up in a Christian baptist home given that both provide Christian nurture to their children? I don't see the water adding anything? In fact, many Presbyterian denominations have gone astray, and their baptized children quickly fell away from sound doctrine.
In the NT we see baptism being a sign of belief and repentance.
I have heard one Presbyterian man speak of the baptized infants of believers going to heaven if they die in infancy whereas the infant children of nonbelievers go to hell if they die in infancy, but this seems to have no warrant in Scripture and seems to lend a magical belief to baptism.
So what does baptism DO except to symbolize one's new birth? I do not see it DOING anything except representing an inner reality, an inner reality that we cannot be sure of in infants. You guys seem to put magical power into the sacraments. While it is not full-blown sacerdotalism, it is a sacramentalism.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Trevor,
Here is a post from 2013 that Bruce B. answered your question succinctly:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-efficacy-of-baptism.80722/#post-1017725
Here is a post from 2013 that Bruce B. answered your question succinctly:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-efficacy-of-baptism.80722/#post-1017725
- Status
