Questions on baptism
- Thread starter jtbdad
- Start date
- Status
John,
The 1689 LBC states:
To answer your question, water baptism is none of those things. Water baptism is a sign of those things.
Spirit baptism accomplishes the things you asked about.
jtbdad
Puritan Board Freshman
I do apologize for my poorly asked question but your answer seems to be precisely what I was looking for. Your stance if I understand correctly would be that baptism is a sign of both the cleansing of sin and burial with Christ. Would that be correct?
John
(thanks for moving it to its own thread)
John
(thanks for moving it to its own thread)
Definitely, baptism is symbolic of cleansing: i.e the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5, for example.
I would make this one adjustment to the other point: baptism is not only symbolical of "burial with Christ" but also with "Christ put on" (like clothing), Gal.3:27; and "drinking the Spirit" 1 Cor.12:13.
The doctrine in view in all these "identifications" is that of Union with Christ. Paul's use of the burial metaphor is due to its connection to what follows, namely the resurrection. For us to be united to Christ, we are in the first place united to his Death to Sin, so that we might be "raised to newness of life" in Christ (the Firstborn from the Dead, Col 1:18). Note once again, the emphasis on union. Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of our Christian identification, the beginning or our union with Christ.
As a confessional paedo-baptist, I am not precommitted to the idea that the symbolic/sacramental application of the water is tied to the work of the Spirit of necessity, or effective/meaningful by virtue of its temporal relation to conversion (post or prior to the rite). Regarding the elect, I hold there is a sacramental union of the sign and thing signified which is actuated by faith. No faith = no possession of the reality of what is signified until/unless faith is present.
I would make this one adjustment to the other point: baptism is not only symbolical of "burial with Christ" but also with "Christ put on" (like clothing), Gal.3:27; and "drinking the Spirit" 1 Cor.12:13.
The doctrine in view in all these "identifications" is that of Union with Christ. Paul's use of the burial metaphor is due to its connection to what follows, namely the resurrection. For us to be united to Christ, we are in the first place united to his Death to Sin, so that we might be "raised to newness of life" in Christ (the Firstborn from the Dead, Col 1:18). Note once again, the emphasis on union. Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of our Christian identification, the beginning or our union with Christ.
As a confessional paedo-baptist, I am not precommitted to the idea that the symbolic/sacramental application of the water is tied to the work of the Spirit of necessity, or effective/meaningful by virtue of its temporal relation to conversion (post or prior to the rite). Regarding the elect, I hold there is a sacramental union of the sign and thing signified which is actuated by faith. No faith = no possession of the reality of what is signified until/unless faith is present.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
Baptism is a sign and a seal of our covenant relationship with Christ.
As such it marks our "putting on" of Christ,
our "burial" with him,
our "engrafting" into the true vine,
our "enty" into a new sanctuary,
our "adoption" into a new family,
our wearing of "new robes",
our "new birth",
our "adoption" into the family of God,
etc. & etc,
For some reason our (reformed) baptist brothers insist on picking one thing from this list and making it the "ne plus pas ultra' of the baptism debate.
For the life of me, I do not understand why they do not invent some sort of dance like ritual under a showerhead that immitated the "putting on" of "new garments". This would, at least, "show forth" some aspect of the metaphores used in the NT, without resorting to one that has been so abused by heretics down through the years.
As such it marks our "putting on" of Christ,
our "burial" with him,
our "engrafting" into the true vine,
our "enty" into a new sanctuary,
our "adoption" into a new family,
our wearing of "new robes",
our "new birth",
our "adoption" into the family of God,
etc. & etc,
For some reason our (reformed) baptist brothers insist on picking one thing from this list and making it the "ne plus pas ultra' of the baptism debate.
For the life of me, I do not understand why they do not invent some sort of dance like ritual under a showerhead that immitated the "putting on" of "new garments". This would, at least, "show forth" some aspect of the metaphores used in the NT, without resorting to one that has been so abused by heretics down through the years.
Last edited:
Kevin, you're going further than what the OP asked. This thread is not a free for all on baptism. Specifically, the question was:
That question was answered. This comment of yours is not going to fly on my watch.
No one insulted the intelligence of paedo's and I'm not going to sit here and allow credo's to be insulted similarly.
That question was answered. This comment of yours is not going to fly on my watch.
No one insulted the intelligence of paedo's and I'm not going to sit here and allow credo's to be insulted similarly.
Bruce, we're pretty much agreed about the necessity of faith in the thing signified. Of course I see faith exercised in a credible profession (as far as that can be determined), and then matured through sanctification. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would the paedo position say that a child who is baptized validates the efficacy of the sign as they are able to display the evidence of saving faith in their life at a probable later date? It would seem that would have to be the case because infants (In my humble opinion) are not capable of a cognizant understanding of law and gospel. I know. That's a whole other topic.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
WCF 28:6 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.
I would say that the "efficacy" or "efficiency" of baptism (as a means of grace) in the person being baptized takes place when it is appreciated by him for the first time by faith. Of course, I also believe that baptism of an infant is also a sign of the parent's faith in the promises of God. Any time baptism is administered in the church those who are present have an opportunity as well to participate in that means of grace by faith, right then.
The word "validity" in the post bothers me some. I realize you are probably just trying to express your question a certain way. The baptism is objectively a "valid" baptism (in our circles) when performed by a lawfully ordained minister, with the intent to baptize a proper subject. The true faith-condition of the subject's heart does not affect the church's intent or accomplishment of a baptism, even if he should not have been baptized for some reason.
I suspect you mean something else, though, something along the lines of "the child demonstrates that his baptism meant something eternally gracious in his case when in in the course of his life he affirms his faith," or "displays evidence of saving faith." Of course, our judgments, no less than a credo-baptist's judgments, are all provisional, so I'm not sure what eternal truths we think we are demonstrating, despite the best "evidence" available.
As for the cognizance issue, I agree that is a different topic. However, let me say that I deny there is a intellectual minimum necessary to saving faith. This gets us into definitions of infant faith, and speculations on where it might be granted to exist. I do not believe any can go to heaven without faith, and faith is a gift (of capacity coupled with exercise) from God, not an attainment. Jesus used simple, child-like trust to demonstrate the purest faith to be found anyplace. It is the kind of faith that says "God, I believe anything you have told me, are telling me, or will tell me." So, a child or an adult could be saved with a very low intellectual "attainment" in this life. But ordinarily, the gospel is acquired through the mind, and its truth takes up residence in the heart through experimental acquaintance and exercise.
I would say that the "efficacy" or "efficiency" of baptism (as a means of grace) in the person being baptized takes place when it is appreciated by him for the first time by faith. Of course, I also believe that baptism of an infant is also a sign of the parent's faith in the promises of God. Any time baptism is administered in the church those who are present have an opportunity as well to participate in that means of grace by faith, right then.
The word "validity" in the post bothers me some. I realize you are probably just trying to express your question a certain way. The baptism is objectively a "valid" baptism (in our circles) when performed by a lawfully ordained minister, with the intent to baptize a proper subject. The true faith-condition of the subject's heart does not affect the church's intent or accomplishment of a baptism, even if he should not have been baptized for some reason.
I suspect you mean something else, though, something along the lines of "the child demonstrates that his baptism meant something eternally gracious in his case when in in the course of his life he affirms his faith," or "displays evidence of saving faith." Of course, our judgments, no less than a credo-baptist's judgments, are all provisional, so I'm not sure what eternal truths we think we are demonstrating, despite the best "evidence" available.
As for the cognizance issue, I agree that is a different topic. However, let me say that I deny there is a intellectual minimum necessary to saving faith. This gets us into definitions of infant faith, and speculations on where it might be granted to exist. I do not believe any can go to heaven without faith, and faith is a gift (of capacity coupled with exercise) from God, not an attainment. Jesus used simple, child-like trust to demonstrate the purest faith to be found anyplace. It is the kind of faith that says "God, I believe anything you have told me, are telling me, or will tell me." So, a child or an adult could be saved with a very low intellectual "attainment" in this life. But ordinarily, the gospel is acquired through the mind, and its truth takes up residence in the heart through experimental acquaintance and exercise.
Bruce,
I believe you assessed my use of the word "validity" properly. Baptism is valid as a rite, and deserves to be viewed that way. I was speaking of an adult who, looking back at their baptism as an infant, is able to say, "My baptism is now truly indicative of the faith I now possess, because of Christ." Rich has underscored this point more than a few times in his posts on baptism. He views baptism as a continuing means of grace, whereby a believer is able to look back at his baptism as a source of great encouragement. I don't disagree with that in principle. That view could apply equally to credos and paedos.
We are agreed on the topic of faith in your last paragraph. I believe faith is a gift from God, given to His elect. There is no minimum intellectual requirement in order to believe by faith, although believing by faith is a requirement. The ordinary means of saving faith is law and gospel. Bypassing the topic of whether this applies to infants, I think we can safely assume it applies to all those who are capable of understanding.
I believe you assessed my use of the word "validity" properly. Baptism is valid as a rite, and deserves to be viewed that way. I was speaking of an adult who, looking back at their baptism as an infant, is able to say, "My baptism is now truly indicative of the faith I now possess, because of Christ." Rich has underscored this point more than a few times in his posts on baptism. He views baptism as a continuing means of grace, whereby a believer is able to look back at his baptism as a source of great encouragement. I don't disagree with that in principle. That view could apply equally to credos and paedos.
We are agreed on the topic of faith in your last paragraph. I believe faith is a gift from God, given to His elect. There is no minimum intellectual requirement in order to believe by faith, although believing by faith is a requirement. The ordinary means of saving faith is law and gospel. Bypassing the topic of whether this applies to infants, I think we can safely assume it applies to all those who are capable of understanding.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Bruce:
I do not often disagree with you, but I find your statement above to be less than representative of the paedo-baptist position. The definition of Baptism in the WCF I am sure you are quite aware of:
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.
Now, where in any of this do you find the statement you made above, "not only symbolical of 'Burial with Christ'"?
Before I comment I will await your clarification of this.
-CH
Robert,
What I chose to emphasize in my response were two OTHER explicit union-with-Christ connections that Scripture makes to baptism. Did you investigate the texts? Did you note their connections to baptism? How can you question the explicit statements of Scripture? Why would it not be representative of the paedo-baptist (do you mean "sprinkling/pouring" baptist?) position? Surely, we would agree with immersionists up to a point, but no farther than Scripture actually goes, right?
My point was, and continues to be, that for the immersionist to "lock in" on the Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 texts--as if those two texts TAUGHT a mode by dint of an alleged "picture"--the same thing would have to be said concerning "wearing" and "drinking". Does the rite of baptism depict putting on clothes? Does it depict drinking? Why should we assume, then, that "burial" confirms some sort of picture? But clearly it must be symbolical of them all, and all at once.
Sure, it can go the other way--if as an immersionist, someone wants to make a "picture-connection" to the Rom6/Col2 passages, then he is welcome to do so. However, one is not justified in selecting those passages (and ignoring the others) and saying: "See, the mode is established by an appeal to these two texts."
I'm not even saying that I have recently seen a baptist do this, much less on this board. But I know it is done, I know the claim is made that those texts TEACH baptism by immersion.
Now it so happens that union (ingrafting, in the WCF language of this particular paragraph) with Christ is union with him in dimension after dimension after dimension--including death/burial, Rom.6:4 & Col.2:12.
What I chose to emphasize in my response were two OTHER explicit union-with-Christ connections that Scripture makes to baptism. Did you investigate the texts? Did you note their connections to baptism? How can you question the explicit statements of Scripture? Why would it not be representative of the paedo-baptist (do you mean "sprinkling/pouring" baptist?) position? Surely, we would agree with immersionists up to a point, but no farther than Scripture actually goes, right?
My point was, and continues to be, that for the immersionist to "lock in" on the Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 texts--as if those two texts TAUGHT a mode by dint of an alleged "picture"--the same thing would have to be said concerning "wearing" and "drinking". Does the rite of baptism depict putting on clothes? Does it depict drinking? Why should we assume, then, that "burial" confirms some sort of picture? But clearly it must be symbolical of them all, and all at once.
Sure, it can go the other way--if as an immersionist, someone wants to make a "picture-connection" to the Rom6/Col2 passages, then he is welcome to do so. However, one is not justified in selecting those passages (and ignoring the others) and saying: "See, the mode is established by an appeal to these two texts."
I'm not even saying that I have recently seen a baptist do this, much less on this board. But I know it is done, I know the claim is made that those texts TEACH baptism by immersion.
Last edited:
I agree!
- Status
