Question on Paedobaptism

[JesusIsLord]

My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:

If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?

I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?

 

[hammondjones]

Each time we see a baptism, I remind my children they have also been baptized, that the Lord has a claim on them, that they were born into the church, that this is their birthright BUT also that they must to believe, because, born in sin, they have dirty hearts.

So, if the question is "What is the benefit of the child being part of the visible church?", I'll give a Romans 3:2 answer: "Much in every way."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do your children appreciate growing up with a "last name?" Little Billy or Suzy acquire their own sense of name-identity quite early; but eventually they also apprehend the "family" name.

Do they understand all that it means? No, not right away; but they grow in their understanding. Furthermore, they may at first only appreciate it most superficially, rather than in a deep and fully appropriate manner. Indeed, it can be cliché for a child to have to pass through and beyond his teens, perhaps go off to college, to really appreciate what his last name means.

Some kids eventually repudiate (one way or another) their named-connection because of a negative attitude.

*************************
What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude."

These two notions represent or illustrate two approaches to the matter of identification through baptism. You might argue that the second way is "hardly any different" practically from the first; parents in both conceptions do the same things, etc.

Or, maybe there is some difference, to have a name outwardly and externally and objectively before I even know it as a child, and to grow into a proper appreciation for it; and into the duties and responsibilities that believing that name has value.

Or, the other side might argue that everyone should make a vow to take a family name, and not really be of a certain clan until then. After all, some children grow up to be a scandal to their parents, so maybe better off not labeling them until they label themselves?

History has some of both, I guess. Some tribes of the earth make entrance into adulthood the moment when ALL recognition is given. Some tribes regard belonging as beginning in birth, and grant privilege through testing or milestones.

*************************
Bottom line: despite similarities between RB and RP in theology and practice, there are different starting points, and different assumptions driving us. We're better off acknowledging the differences, instead of putting all the emphasis on how the "overlap" seems (to some) to make the opposite habits worthless.

Finally, our decision on what to do isn't driven by a practical evaluation.

Rather, God said it; that settles it.

 

[Von]

Finally, our decision on what to do isn't driven by a practical evaluation.

Rather, God said it; that settles it.

Even though I differ from Rev Buchanan on the baptism-issue, I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. There are so many similar issues that deserve the same answer.

 

[Scott Bushey]

then what benefit is baptism for the child?

It unites them to the covenant-some internally, others externally. The Apostle tells us that our children are 'holy' and since we understand the command to place the sign, we consider the child set-apart for this holiness. Whether they are rebellious to that sign, is irrelevant. God commands and hence, we do.

 

[Romans922]

“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” - Rom. 3:1-2
‭

 

[Solparvus]

My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:

If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?

I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?

Like has been said, the main issue will be whether God said to do it. I think that finer details such as this will be answered based on whom you believe should be baptized.

From a paedo standpoint, you are both treating your children as church members, doing things for them you'd never do for an unrepentant unbeliever, so you are both discipling your children like was done in Deuteronomy 6, and as Paul says in Ephesians, "Children obey your parents in the Lord." I can't imagine that the Israelite parents ever thought they were doing anything else than discipling. I'm not sure what else Abraham was doing either when God said of him, "He will command his children after him."

By baptism, you are calling them a member of the church, and by discipling, you are treating them consistently.

I think one great and practical key difference though is that a paedobaptist sees a world of promises for the children of believers in the Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant, instead of believing that they may be blessed by incident of being in a believer's home, but nothing really being allotted or promised to them. The fact that the NC promises the same benefits for the children as the adults is incredible incentive to preach the Gospel to them, pray for them, and be faithful in all means to disciple them.

 

[greenbaggins]

I always appreciate Bruce's contributions to these baptism threads. I will contribute an analogy as well. Imagine two nearly identical scenarios: in both of them an earnest young man proposes marriage to the love of his life. In one scenario, the young man proposes with a ring in hand that he offers to her. In the other scenario, he proposes without a ring. Now, exceedingly practically-minded young ladies might not mind at all being proposed to without a ring. They might think that it makes no difference at all. However, ask most ladies on this board whether it makes a difference, and you will get one predominating answer, I am thinking: it makes a great deal of difference! Why? Because, having purchased a ring, the young man is "putting his money where his mouth is."

So, to extend the analogy to the baptism question, God has promised to work covenantally through the family. All acknowledge that this is no guarantee of salvation: faith is required on the part of the young'un. However, when God promises that all those who come to faith in Jesus Christ will be saved, how does God "put his money where his mouth is?" Presbyterians believe that he does so in baptism. The promise is sure, God means what he says, and he has given us a sign to prove it (we need the signs because our own faith is weak).

However mistaken the FV has been on many things, one phrase that the FV either originated or popularized that I really like is "grabbing people by their baptisms." When young folk stray from the straight and narrow path, we can remind them that God made a promise to them, and that the parents responded in faith as well. They were affianced to Jesus Christ in baptism. Breaking that relationship is possible, but carries enormous negative baggage.

 

[beloved7]

As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?

Not a knock on Presbyterians, got nothing but love for you all.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?

With all due respect, you should ask Abraham this question. And he would reply, "God said it; that settles it." If you apprehend the scriptural reasoning of a Presbyterian, they you are aware that we regard these as equivalent signs, suited to their respective eras (whether Promise or Fulfillment).

God formally put the children of believers into the externally administered sphere of his covenant in Gen.17 (paraphrasing Warfield); he has nowhere in Scripture put them out; therefore they remain in, and are due the sign which was given even to them.

 

[beloved7]

With all due respect, you should ask Abraham this question. And he would reply, "God said it; that settles it." If you apprehend the scriptural reasoning of a Presbyterian, they you are aware that we regard these as equivalent signs, suited to their respective eras (whether Promise or Fulfillment).

God formally put the children of believers into the externally administered sphere of his covenant in Gen.17 (paraphrasing Warfield); he has nowhere in Scripture put them out; therefore they remain in, and are due the sign which was given even to them.

I'm not going to argue with you over this. But you didn' answer the question, at all. That was quite the stretch.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm not going to argue with you over this. But you didn' answer the question, at all. That was quite the stretch.

Your quote: "I understand the scriptural reasoning," but... I guess not?

Maybe you want in a soundbite? We don't wait because God said "Don't wait." No stretch.

 

[beloved7]

I think it is best if I bite my tounge.

 

[Cymro]

Dr A.W.Miller wrote, ‘that children are not baptised in order that they may be sons and heirs of God, but because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism’. Children are as much in covenant as their parents are. Baptism is a recognition of the fact that presumably the child is already in the covenant of grace. A child could be cleansed by the same purifying grace which cleanses the pollution of an adults sin.
Really there must be a consistency between the baptism of adults and that of children. Put it like this, all baptism is inevitably administered not of knowledge but of presumption. Warfield would say, that” membership in the visible church is founded on a presumptive membership in the invisible church, until its subjects by an act incompatible therewith, prove the contrary.” So that could encompass a child or a professing adult. Whilst Hodge would write, “All membership in the church, consequently all baptism as a seal of that membership, was on the basis of a presumption of election, not on the presumption of regeneration.” A profession is not more a solid basis to build upon than the divine promise. Again Warfield would state, “that if we baptise on the basis of presumption, the whole principle is yielded.”
Furthermore, the presumption of election is not founded on the children’s baptism, but their baptism is founded on the presumption in the divine promise that they belonged to the body of Christ- to the elect. To my mind, when formerly a Baptist, I hoped that my children would be saved because of my parental love for them. Now I have the sign and seal of the promise of the God who cannot lie, to rest in and plead that He fulfill it to them.

 

[Gforce9]

I think it is best if I bite my tounge.

I believe you are correct.

 

[Flowers]

My best friend (Reformed Baptist) asked me a really good question that made me think. We were discussing Paedobaptism and he asked me this question:

If in the end a reformed baptist and a Presbyterian want the same thing (their children to bear good fruit and show that they are believers) then what benefit is baptism for the child? If a Reformed Baptist raises his children in the Lord, catechizing them, disciplining them and calling them to repentance and the Presbyterian does the same, then why baptize?

I am a Presbyterian leaning fellow and I found this question hard to answer. Any answers here?

Baptism confers a new status upon the child as a member of the covenant community of God. This status is so remarkable that it would be a shame to deny the child of it - especially since he or she is entitled to it.

 

[Flowers]

As a RB, I've also wondered this as well. I respect the Presbyterian position on infant baptism, and I understand the scriptural reasoning. Ultimately, however, it's symbolic. Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?

Not a knock on Presbyterians, got nothing but love for you all.

It is more than a symbol. Baptism is actually effective. It is a sign and a seal. And, as I said above, it confers new status.

 

[JTB.SDG]

If God said to do it, there is benefit in it, even if we, with our puny minds, can't comprehend fully what that benefit is or how it works. But it's certain, "In keeping God's Word, there is great reward." In fact, you could extend the question past infant baptism and just focus on baptism in general. Why baptize at all? What's the benefit of baptizing, whether infants or adults? Why the sacraments? Can't we just listen to the Word of God and believe? Why do we do it? Because God said to do it. And we do well to obey what God says.

 

[earl40]

Why not wait for the child to do it on their own, and give a public testimony to the congregation as well?

Many people are terrified to get up in front of a ton of people and speak. To require such is cruel and ought not to be asked of them.

 

[beloved7]

If God said to do it, there is benefit in it, even if we, with our puny minds, can't comprehend fully what that benefit is or how it works. But it's certain, "In keeping God's Word, there is great reward." In fact, you could extend the question past infant baptism and just focus on baptism in general. Why baptize at all? What's the benefit of baptizing, whether infants or adults? Why the sacraments? Can't we just listen to the Word of God and believe? Why do we do it? Because God said to do it. And we do well to obey what God says.

Many people are terrified to get up in front of a ton of people and speak. To require such is cruel and ought not to be asked of them.

Jesus commands us to tell people our testimony in Mark 5:19 (you know, the whole God said it, that settles it thing). Yes, it's frightening. I was very anxious but pulled through it. The Holy Spirit helped me (John 16:13). It's an act of obedience to our Lord.

If what you said were true one could argue that the great commssion is cruel, could they not? If someone is going to engage in spiritual warfare for the rest of their earthly lives, public speaking for a couple minutes is a drop in the bucket.

 

[earl40]

Jesus commands us to tell people our testimony in Mark 5:19 (you know, the whole God said it, that settles it thing). Yes, it's frightening. I was very anxious but pulled through it. The Holy Spirit helped me (John 16:13). It's an act of obedience to our Lord.

If what you said were true one could argue that the great commssion is cruel, could they not? If someone is going to engage in spiritual warfare for the rest of their earthly lives, public speaking for a couple minutes is a drop in the bucket.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-great-commission-only-to-apostles.58678/

 

[beloved7]

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-great-commission-only-to-apostles.58678/

Thank you for the link to this. It's an interesting topic. Much of it lies with how one views polity and the priesthood of all believers. When Jesus cast out demons and told the man to go and tell everyone what God did for him, He wasn't speaking to an apostle. Nor was He commanding the man to become a teacher. It was pretty straight forward that the man was to share his testimony. There are others here who are more well educated and can articulate their posts much better than I. Though, ultimatly, mental theological gymnastics are exactly that, mental gymnastics.

 

[greenbaggins]

Baptism confers a new status upon the child as a member of the covenant community of God. This status is so remarkable that it would be a shame to deny the child of it - especially since he or she is entitled to it.

It is actually better to say that the status of a child as a member of the covenant community is theirs by right of birth into a covenant family. Baptism is the solemn ceremony marking that inclusion. Children are already part of the covenant community. They do not become so by virtue of baptism.

 

[Flowers]

It is actually better to say that the status of a child as a member of the covenant community is theirs by right of birth into a covenant family. Baptism is the solemn ceremony marking that inclusion. Children are already part of the covenant community. They do not become so by virtue of baptism.

In our church someone cannot become a member unless they've been baptized. I do think that visible church membership is a new status in the eyes of God.

 

[greenbaggins]

Billy, your statement is not nuanced enough. Adults may not become members except by profession of faith, which would also require baptism. Children of believers are members of the church by virtue of being born into a covenant family of which one or both parents are members of the church. See the following passages in the PCA BCO: 6-1 "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant." BCO 56-4 g-h, indicate the word "solemnly" is very important, because of the section h, which says "That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized." Section j of the same section repeats it again that they are made members of the church "By virtue of being children of believing parents." This is in accord with 1 Corinthians 7:14, which describes the children of even one believing parent as "holy," set apart from the world by virtue of their birth, not because of their baptism. Your view is simply incorrect, and out of accord with the BCO, and with scripture.

WCF 28.1 has again that all-important qualifying word "solemn." It is a solemn reception. It does not confer a membership that was not already possessed. WLC 166 is also quite clear on this point. With respect to adults, they have to profess faith. However, it says of children that "infants descended 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."

They are already part of the covenant community. Baptism marks the solemn confirmation of that status that they already have.

 

[Flowers]

Billy, your statement is not nuanced enough. Adults may not become members except by profession of faith, which would also require baptism. Children of believers are members of the church by virtue of being born into a covenant family of which one or both parents are members of the church. See the following passages in the PCA BCO: 6-1 "The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant." BCO 56-4 g-h, indicate the word "solemnly" is very important, because of the section h, which says "That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized." Section j of the same section repeats it again that they are made members of the church "By virtue of being children of believing parents." This is in accord with 1 Corinthians 7:14, which describes the children of even one believing parent as "holy," set apart from the world by virtue of their birth, not because of their baptism. Your view is simply incorrect, and out of accord with the BCO, and with scripture.

WCF 28.1 has again that all-important qualifying word "solemn." It is a solemn reception. It does not confer a membership that was not already possessed. WLC 166 is also quite clear on this point. With respect to adults, they have to profess faith. However, it says of children that "infants descended 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."

They are already part of the covenant community. Baptism marks the solemn confirmation of that status that they already have.

I appreciate this but this does present some practical issues. There is a family in our church who are members and who have chosen not to bring their children for baptism. This is because they are credo-baptists. If this family were in your church, would you not insist upon baptism before you admitted these children to the Lord's Supper? But why insist upon baptism if they're already members of the church? You must admit that baptism makes a difference here in conferring a new status.

 

[greenbaggins]

I appreciate this but this does present some practical issues. There is a family in our church who are members and who have chosen not to bring their children for baptism. This is because they are credo-baptists. If this family were in your church, would you not insist upon baptism before you admitted these children to the Lord's Supper? But why insist upon baptism if they're already members of the church? You must admit that baptism makes a difference here in conferring a new status.

Firstly, it is more than a little disturbing to me that I present to you biblical, confessional, and BCO arguments, to which you respond with no answer to those things, but instead present a practical situation that you think tears a huge whole through the arguments I presented. Practical situations NEVER determine our theology. That is not a confessional viewpoint.

Secondly, even the case you cite proves no such thing as you describe. Paedo-baptists insist upon paedo-baptism because we believe the Scripture requires it, not because it confers a new status of membership that the child did not have previously. Your case doesn't even prove your point. The only "status" baptism confers is "baptized status." It does not confer membership in the visible church. It marks membership in the visible church.

Thirdly, if I had a family wanting to join, who were credo-baptists (and had children who were not baptized), I would patiently, and over the course of a long time, seek to convince them of the paedo-baptist position before admission into membership. If they would not be convinced after my best and most prayer-filled efforts, I would seek to place them in a Reformed Baptist congregation rather than introduce them into a church situation where they would be, in the eyes of the church, sinning.

 

[Flowers]

Firstly, it is more than a little disturbing to me that I present to you biblical, confessional, and BCO arguments, to which you respond with no answer to those things, but instead present a practical situation that you think tears a huge whole through the arguments I presented. Practical situations NEVER determine our theology. That is not a confessional viewpoint.

I'm sorry that you're more than a little disturbed. I love the confession and the BCO, but I haven't invited them into my heart as my Lord and Savior. I do agree with the confessions on this issue and so I appreciate what they're saying. I just think that more can be said.

Secondly, even the case you cite proves no such thing as you describe. Paedo-baptists insist upon paedo-baptism because we believe the Scripture requires it, not because it confers a new status of membership that the child did not have previously. Your case doesn't even prove your point. The only "status" baptism confers is "baptized status." It does not confer membership in the visible church. It marks membership in the visible church.

Could there be a church member who is unbaptized?

Thirdly, if I had a family wanting to join, who were credo-baptists (and had children who were not baptized), I would patiently, and over the course of a long time, seek to convince them of the paedo-baptist position before admission into membership. If they would not be convinced after my best and most prayer-filled efforts, I would seek to place them in a Reformed Baptist congregation rather than introduce them into a church situation where they would be, in the eyes of the church, sinning.

That you think that this is an actionable, disciplinary issue is a little alarming to me. Though I'm a paedo-baptist and proud to be, our church has no issue being in fellowship with brothers who are credo-baptists. Of course we would not admit them to office unless they changed their view. But if someone legitimately holds the credo-baptist view I don't see it as a disciplinary issue.

 

[Scott Bushey]

our church has no issue being in fellowship with brothers who are credo-baptists.

I don't believe any of us Presbyterians would argue against 'fellowship' w/ our dear brethren in the credo fold. However, I am getting the feeling that what u are saying here means that they are allowed into the actual membership of the church. Is that correct? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[earl40]

However, I am getting the feeling that what u are saying here means that they are allowed into the actual membership of the church. Is that correct? Am I understanding you correctly?

Tell me this is not uncommon in PCA churches?