Status of Infants in Presbyterianism?

[ReformedCow]

I have been trying to figure out the Reformed view of the sacrament of Baptism for a long time now. The Westminster confession states that Baptism is an effectual means of salvation for the Elect, even though it usually isn't tied to the exact moment of it happening. I also understand that children of 1 or more believing parents are to be baptized. However, I have heard different things about what exactly this means.

If children of believers are members of the New Covenant, I'm unsure about what we should call them.

Is it right to call them Christians? If so, this makes me ask a few questions.

1. Does this mean that anyone who has been validly baptized and is in the visible church a Christian?
2. Is it correct to call these babies children of God?
3. Does this mean we can say that apostates were truly Christians before they left the church (even if they aren't elect unless they repent and return)?
4. Does this mean that there are some people who are Christians who are heading to Hell?

 

[Logan]

Do you know whether anyone should be called a "Christian" if you don't know whether or not they are part of the elect?

You're on the right track with the visible/invisible church distinction. In general the term "Christian" would mean anyone who is part of the visible church, but not necessarily elect. So it might be more useful to think about it in terms of the "elect" or the "regenerated".

You don't know whether the parents are part of the invisible church either, but by their profession they are part of the visible and are rightly called "Christians". So children of these professing "Christians" should also be called "Christians".

 

[hammondjones]

Admittedly, "Christian" is an interesting sort of term, starting as a pejorative.

In the Directory for the Publick Worship of God, produced by the Westminster Assembly, the reasons for baptizing children include

that they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized

Directory for the Publick Worship of God

Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645 AD) THE PREFACE. IN the beginning of the blessed Reformation, our wise and pious ancestors took care to set forth an order for redress of many things, which they then, by the word, discovered to be vain erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous, in...

thewestminsterstandard.org

From a Westminster perspective, yes, I believe we call children of believers Christians. My children have asked me if we are a Christian family, I say, "yes, we are Christians" - even at the same time as I press upon them the necessity of personal faith.

I acknowledge that in certain circles, at least popularly, "Christian" is often taken to be equivalent to "born-again". However, I think it is better if we simply use "Christian" as someone who has publicly committed to following Christ. That would be church members. Unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary which calls their testimony into dispute, I "believe all things".

In the case of my children, I have pledged them as Christ-followers on their behalf. They are born into the church as Christians as they are born into my family with my surname as they are born into America as citizens.

Does "True Christian" = regenerate/born-again? That will be the answer to 3 and 4.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You can answer your questions by changing them this way to think of how Presbyterians view discipleship:

If children of believers adults who profess faith are members of the New Covenant, I'm unsure about what we should call them.

Is it right to call them Christians? If so, this makes me ask a few questions.

1. Does this mean that anyone who has been validly baptized and is in the visible church a Christian?
2. Is it correct to call these babies adult professors children of God?
3. Does this mean we can say that apostates were truly Christians before they left the church (even if they aren't elect unless they repent and return)?
4. Does this mean that there are some people who are Christians who are heading to Hell?

 

[erickinho1bra]

I, being a credobaptist, can usually sympathize with my paedobaptist brothers when I think of (my understanding of) their view of the continuity between the OC and the NC. If you think from that perspective then I think you can answer "Yes" to all those questions.

I imagine a Jew/Israelite from before Jesus' time asking themself the same questions you asked yourself with a bit of a difference in wording:

If children of Israelites are members of the Abrahamic Covenant, I'm unsure about what we should call them.

Is it right to call them God's people? If so, this makes me ask a few questions.

1. Does this mean that anyone who has been validly circumcised and is in the visible people of God is a child of Abraham?
2. Is it correct to call these (circumcised) babies children of God?
3. Does this mean we can say that apostates were truly Jews before they left the assembly (even if they aren't elect unless they repent and return)?
4. Does this mean that there are some people who are Jews who are heading to Hell?

If I am wrong in my thinking, please forgive me. I try to do my best to understand the P&R side of the Covenant and baptism but I know I don't have it down perfectly.

 

[TylerRay]

I have been trying to figure out the Reformed view of the sacrament of Baptism for a long time now. The Westminster confession states that Baptism is an effectual means of salvation for the Elect, even though it usually isn't tied to the exact moment of it happening. I also understand that children of 1 or more believing parents are to be baptized. However, I have heard different things about what exactly this means.

If children of believers are members of the New Covenant, I'm unsure about what we should call them.

Is it right to call them Christians? If so, this makes me ask a few questions.

1. Does this mean that anyone who has been validly baptized and is in the visible church a Christian?
2. Is it correct to call these babies children of God?
3. Does this mean we can say that apostates were truly Christians before they left the church (even if they aren't elect unless they repent and return)?
4. Does this mean that there are some people who are Christians who are heading to Hell?

Hey, brother. Yes, they are Christians in an outward sense, just as one could be a Jew in an outward sense (Rom 2:28-29). However, that doesn't mean we should presume they are elect or regenerate any more than it meant the Jews were warranted to believe they were saved by virtue of being Jews outwardly (Matt 3:9).

To summarize, he is not a Christian which is one outwardly, neither is that baptism which is outward on the flesh; but he is a Christian which is one inwardly; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The best way to look at this 1 Cor holiness is to contrast it with the vessels in the temple that were set-apart for holy convocations. It is not that the vessels themselves were Holy, but it was what they were set apart for. They were Holy as long as they were being used for holiness.

1 Kings 14:25–27 (KJV 1900): 25 And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: 26 And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made. 27 And king Rehoboam made in their stead brasen shields, and committed them unto the hands of the chief of the guard, which kept the door of the king’s house.

 

[reformedtrappist]

I have been trying to figure out the Reformed view of the sacrament of Baptism for a long time now. The Westminster confession states that Baptism is an effectual means of salvation for the Elect, even though it usually isn't tied to the exact moment of it happening. I also understand that children of 1 or more believing parents are to be baptized. However, I have heard different things about what exactly this means.

If children of believers are members of the New Covenant, I'm unsure about what we should call them.

Is it right to call them Christians? If so, this makes me ask a few questions.

1. Does this mean that anyone who has been validly baptized and is in the visible church a Christian?
2. Is it correct to call these babies children of God?
3. Does this mean we can say that apostates were truly Christians before they left the church (even if they aren't elect unless they repent and return)?
4. Does this mean that there are some people who are Christians who are heading to Hell?

1 and 2 - Yes, a good read would be the form for the baptist of infants (https://canrc.org/forms/form-for-the-baptism-of-infants)
3. No, we would not say they were truly Christian. It is nuanced because we do not know the heart. But we would typrically follow the line of Calvin on the Preserverance of the Saints, which suggests that those who are truly regenerate and belong to the invisible church will persevere in faith to the end. If someone who appeared to be a Christian later falls away from the faith and becomes an apostate, that person was never truly Christian. The elect will never fall away.
4. Ourwardly Christian, yes. Truly Christain, no.

 

[Shadow Forge]

Baptism is just a seal and nothing more. In my humble opinion, if one is not of the elect, they are not Christians(True Believers). Many believe that a child below a certain age, if they die, are guaranteed heaven. What it all boils down to is that there are so many questions needing answers but the answers are ones we will never know. I had myself and my daughters baptized in December and I know full well that there is a possibility that only one of them are elect.. hopefully both. Mankind has been debating this issue of baptism for far too long and still havent realized that it doesnt really matter at all. There are far more important things to be doing then to debate over how wet one gets when getting baptized.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Baptism is just a seal and nothing more. In my humble opinion, if one is not of the elect, they are not Christians(True Believers). Many believe that a child below a certain age, if they die, are guaranteed heaven. What it all boils down to is that there are so many questions needing answers but the answers are ones we will never know. I had myself and my daughters baptized in December and I know full well that there is a possibility that only one of them are elect.. hopefully both. Mankind has been debating this issue of baptism for far too long and still havent realized that it doesnt really matter at all. There are far more important things to be doing then to debate over how wet one gets when getting baptized.

Baptism is a sign and a seal. If everyone received the seal at baptism, then everyone would be, by definition, saved (since the seal is what the sign signifies).

Assuming you meant that Baptism is nothing more than a sign, even that is not true. Baptism is a sacrament and, by that, we mean that it has an outward sign that promises the seal of graces for those who are ultimately seals in those graces by the Spirit.

The sacrament of baptism marks the person visibly from the world and joins them to the visible Kindom of Christ and they are engaged to be the Lord's. This does not mean that they are united to Christ by the mere act but it does bring them into the Church where Christ in Word and Sacrament are means of conversion. That said, if a baptized person comes to faith in Christ, then the sacramental aspect of baptism is such that the water of baptism can be seen as a tangible seal of their union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Returning to the OP, the reason I answered the way I did in my initial response is that it is typical for Christians to think in revivalistic terms about the issue of baptism. We've grown accustomed to thinking that a profession of faith changes the answer, in some way, to how one would answer the question of whether a baptized party is a "Christian:.

It doesn't.

Neither an infant, nor a professor, receives the seal of the graces signified by the bare act. Neither the infant nor the professor are baptized on the supposition by the Church that we believe they are elect. What the Church knows, for certain, is that they are to be disciples and, therefore, baptized.

As far as we know, the Church calls them Christians because they are engaged to be the Lord's. We're not making any definitive statement about what the Spirit has done or will do in their lives.

 

[Shadow Forge]

Baptism is a sign and a seal. If everyone received the seal at baptism, then everyone would be, by definition, saved (since the seal is what the sign signifies).

Assuming you meant that Baptism is nothing more than a sign, even that is not true. Baptism is a sacrament and, by that, we mean that it has an outward sign that promises the seal of graces for those who are ultimately seals in those graces by the Spirit.

The sacrament of baptism marks the person visibly from the world and joins them to the visible Kindom of Christ and they are engaged to be the Lord's. This does not mean that they are united to Christ by the mere act but it does bring them into the Church where Christ in Word and Sacrament are means of conversion. That said, if a baptized person comes to faith in Christ, then the sacramental aspect of baptism is such that the water of baptism can be seen as a tangible seal of their union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Returning to the OP, the reason I answered the way I did in my initial response is that it is typical for Christians to think in revivalistic terms about the issue of baptism. We've grown accustomed to thinking that a profession of faith changes the answer, in some way, to how one would answer the question of whether a baptized party is a "Christian:.

It doesn't.

Neither an infant, nor a professor, receives the seal of the graces signified by the bare act. Neither the infant nor the professor are baptized on the supposition by the Church that we believe they are elect. What the Church knows, for certain, is that they are to be disciples and, therefore, baptized.

As far as we know, the Church calls them Christians because they are engaged to be the Lord's. We're not making any definitive statement about what the Spirit has done or will do in their lives.

I agree. Hearing so many say that one is not considered a Christian unless they have been baptized is causing a disservice. Yes, baptism is a sacrament. When my daughters were baptized in December, just like I have heard my Pastor state to other child baptisms, it doesn't mean they are believers but in hope they shall become one. As I see it, my daughters are under my covenant umbrella and are deemed Christians. Now, are they both elect or at least one of them? I do not know that. However, it is my solemn duty to prepare them for service to the Lord in a manner that is pleasing to Him.

 

[cthorn14]

I believe it's fair to refer to all baptized members of the visible Christian church as "Christians".

However, this is under the assumption that the preaching ministry is 'discriminatory', ie. that the distinction in post #6 above is stressed often.

Without diminishing God's promises in baptism, and without presuming to definitively know the status of individuals, children should be particularly warned against the danger of resting in external privileges.

A good example can be found in Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Children Ought to Love the Lord Jesus Christ Above All".