Servus Christi
Puritan Board Freshman
What particular benefits does paedobaptism acquire for the child baptized, that an unbaptized child in a godly baptist family would not have?
Paedo-Baptism Answers Question Regarding. Paedobaptism
- Thread starter Servus Christi
- Start date
- Status
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Speaking from practical experience (and I will let others speak on other perspectives), as someone who left the church as a teenager and came back in adulthood: Knowing I was baptized as an infant meant that I could never shake away Jesus from my mind. I never ever could call myself an atheist. Even with not much theological knowledge , the simple knowledge and memory of baptism in church meant that feeling that Jesus was somehow interested in me.
And the above made me more assured that God was willing to receive me, when He worked in me my prodigal son repentance later on.
And the above made me more assured that God was willing to receive me, when He worked in me my prodigal son repentance later on.
danekristjan
Puritan Board Freshman
They receive their birthright, the sign and seal of the covenant of grace that is rightfully theirs. Children of believers are Christian, members of Christ's church, and therefore are to be baptized. Whether they are baptized or not does not change the reality that the birthright is theirs, but we are commanded to give them their birthright.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
The baptism provides benefit to that particular child insofar as it is a sign and seal of God's promises and insofar as that is actually comprehended by the child in later years (that is why parents must actually speak to their children of these things). Practically speaking, once the child can comprehend it, the child will know that God's covenant promises of justification, regeneration, the washing away of sin are to him or her, specifically. To put it in the first person: since the sign of baptism has been placed upon me, I am given a further assurance (i.e. beyond that simply contained in the word) that God's promises are real and valid, free and faithful, and that I can indeed be a partaker in them. In fact, by the very fact that God has seen to it that I have been baptized, it proves to me that God has, in a sense, extended an olive branch to me, personally. This should not be interpreted as an Arminian formulation, as it of course is subservient to God's eternal elective decrees. But in baptism we are not to look into God's eternal decree. We are only to look into what he is saying to us.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Specifically and practically, that is for the Lord to decide. However generally the “benefits” would at least include all the benefits we would state generally for obedience to God’s commands. You could ask the same question of “what is the practical benefit of teaching our children to sing the Psalms?” It kinda seems loaded.
I can see the thought process having been a baptist for most of my life: “Well since the baptist children are not turning into lepers and dropping dead, there can’t be much benefit right?”…….wrong. If we lean on our “perceived” lack of judgment from God to determine the “benefit” of following a command, then we lose a biblical concept that not only do we lack the ability to know the mind of God but also the scriptures give clear testimony that often times disobedience is left unpunished in this life and sometimes the pagans even appear to be more blessed (by the world’s standards).
The main benefit I see would be providing an example to your child of obedience and faith in the Lord’s promises. As the child matures, parents can regularly point this out as they raise their children in the Lord. They can draw a long line of covenant faithfulness (Abraham) and visible household entry into the people of God (externally) and with a strong hope of internal inclusion of the child as they grow and produce fruit consistent with their baptism.
There is great comfort to be had in showing children the commonalities that exist between circumcision and baptism and helping them see the one big picture of how God works with his covenant people. Apart from the benefit of being obidient to what we feel the scriptures teach, there is great practical comfort for a child to have in seeing such continuity between themselves (under Christian parents) and having more common ground with not only the NT but also the OT in household faithfulness.
Another benefit is that a child’s baptism can be brought to their attention as accountability and a reminder to seek faithful living in times of disobedience and as they get older and go through seasons of weak faithful or even back siding. Their baptism is a reminder of Christ and what he has done for his people.
Last edited:
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
This is a really wonderful testimony - thanks for sharing.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I might be way off here, but this is a question of genuine inquiry. Above was quoted as a reason for infant baptism; that children of Christians are automatically Christians, and the baptism is a sign of their birthright. If genuine Christians are only those who have been eternally elected; or foreknown; how does Esau (which I think it is safe to assume) being circumcized, in response to the command given to Abraham, become negated when Jacob was chosen as the heir to election? Or am I getting this wrong? It just seemed to me that the above comment meant to say that all the children of Christians are automatically elect. Or is it wrong to assume that Esau was circumsized as a sign of the covenant? And also, how would this play into Paul saying not all the seeds of Abraham are the children of promise?
Last edited:
danekristjan
Puritan Board Freshman
They are Christian, that does not mean they are automatically saved. Esau was part of the covenant, as was Judas, as was Saul of Tarsus.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Short reply.
If you apprehend with respect to secular nationality, your children are "Americans" or "Texans," then you can grasp something of the sense in which it is meant/acknowledged that a Christians' children are Christian. Expecting the reply that focuses on the dissimilarity of citizenship as opposed to the similarity, the Presbyterian is not saying something about God's secret election. When we baptize a person in a Presbyterian church, we don't do so on the basis of election, known, asserted, or presumed. Baptism, as circumcision of old, is an external identity marker, a testament to citizenship/membership that is declared to this world. Ideally, the external witness should be united to internal commitment. Covenant has both an inward reality or substance, and an outward administration.
A child growing up in Texas should (maybe?, I'll let you decide) be catechized into all the heart devotion to those marks of a true Texan. But, maybe you think he should not cheer for the team until he can choose it for himself? How sincere is it, when he's just cheering because you are? Is it OK if he gets to be 20yrs old, and says "I've always been a Texan!" And what about that one friend (former?) who abandoned all that good Texas upbringing? Or became a traitor to America, despite all the advantages he grew up with, especially birth in Texas? Or, how about the person who really doesn't care about the advantages he has based on his birth, but only takes advantage of his position of privilege to be narcissistic and selfish? Is he really living out his American/Texan identity?
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
And I think this really gets to the heart of the matter that I was inquiring about, and thank you for that explanation. So it is basically like saying, ultimately the only one who knows the child's true citizenship is God, but, we are going to treat/her him as a citizen until or if reprobation is made evident, such as a denial of the faith or complete disregard for holiness?
From within the Presbyterian perspective, your description seems a fair and simplified expression of our views. As in secular citizenship, with its "gates" for later participation and expectation (exercise of duties and privileges, like driver's license, military service, or voting), Presbyterians ordinarily require their children to pass through a "communicants' class," or are otherwise expected to demonstrate knowledge (both head and heart) of Christ and the Faith, before the elders will raise the bar and allow participation in the Lord's Table, which (like every other covenant feast in Scripture) requires discernment. It is our prayer that by such a demonstration, the faith we sowed and cultivated in the ground for years is at this mature time showing good fruit. But truly, only God knows the heart.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello David,
When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobates among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.
The New Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).
This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized. The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit.
For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19).
When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobates among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.
The New Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).
This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized. The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit.
For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19).
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
That elucidation, no kidding, almost makes me want to become a Presbyterian today. For the sake of scriptural honesty I must investigate the subject further, but this is indeed pivotal. It makes perfect sense; that is, if I am understanding you correctly, baptism is an extension of the seal of covenant, from God, to Israel, as an act of consecration to God as circumcision once was. Again, that makes perfect sense. And so then, the hang-up between Baptists and those that baptize infants would be one sees it as an act of consecration; while the other sees it as a public testimony of an inward and intellectual submission to the will of God by the person being baptized. OK, this is some heavy stuff and not to take lightly. Again, thank you for your concise yet illuminating response.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
This is indeed correct.
My wife listens to a podcast by the well known Allie Beth Stuckey (a baptist) and she was explaining her views on the subject. She, as with most other baptists I have heard, said that she believed that baptism was a "step of obedience" in the life of a Christian.
We don't view it that way. Yes, baptism is indeed a "step of obedience" for an adult convert. But that is actually incidental, or secondary, to what we believe the primary function of baptism is. We don't believe it is a testimony from us to God - we believe it is a testimony from God to us. You can see the obvious difference here. If it is a testimony from us to God, it is oftentimes a false testimony (think of all those who were baptized even as adults who fall away), and it is impossible, as much as they may try, for church leaders to be absolutely sure it is a valid baptism. If it is a testimony from God to us about what he has done, and is doing in the church, then it is a 100% reliable witness - you can take it to the bank. We don't believe a baptism is invalid because a person may not yet be regenerated, or even if the minister happens to be a false convert. We believe it to be an objective sign. We don't believe that a baptism of a specific child means that the specific child is elect any more than the circumcision of a specific child in ancient Israel meant he was elect. We don't believe baptism and election to be 100% correlated (and baptists also must concede this, although they try to make it as close to 100% as possible by only baptizing those whom they are pretty sure are regenerate). To me, and this is my opinion, the reformed/presbyterian way of viewing the covenant (and baptism) makes sense when I read the new testament, specifically the passages about apostasy. If the NT church is only a spiritual body as opposed to a physical people in the OT, how do we make sense of passages like the following:
1 Corinthians 10:1-13, speaking to the congregation in Corinth, comprised of mostly gentiles:
"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us [a]tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now [b]all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our [c]admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to [d]bear it."
Last edited:
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
WLC Q. 162. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.
The simplest answer to the original question is that the Sacrament of Baptism corresponds to the Gospel in that it points to the Promises of God and not the conditions met by the believer. We baptize because a person is a disciple and not because we have deemed them as elect. The Church is the place where disciples are taught the things of God and we leave the conversion of disciples to God (and hence the sealing of the graces signified in both Sacraments). We want to see fruit in the lives of disciples as Word and Sacrament are used by the Holy Spirit to convert and bear fruit but perceived fruit can become its own "end" rather than continuing to drill in on the Savior from Whom fruit is produced.
D
Deleted member 12865
Guest
My pastor recently preached on the topic of baptism, and if I am quoting him correctly, he made the distinction that the sacrament of baptism is not properly understood as itself a seal (“a sign and a seal”) as has been said, but rather that baptism of water is a sign that points to the seal of baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
Amen.
Greetings! My wife and I have been listening to a podcast series about this very subject. It's been extremely helpful.
Heidelcast Series: I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children - The Heidelblog
The question of baptism, who should be baptized and why, is not just a question about the sacraments. It is a question that is integrally connected to the way we read the Scriptures (hermeneutics), the way we understand redemptive history, the way we understand the biblical covenants, the...
heidelblog.net
- Status
