The Consequences of Sinning in Baptism

[Phil D.]

I suppose this thread is a subjective off-take of another current thread that concerns some of the practical implications of differing views on baptism.

However, my question concerns the spiritual or eternal consequences of how one sees and practices baptism.

• Confessional Reformed Paedobaptists believe that to neglect the baptism of infants is a great sin.
• Reformed Baptists don't typically use the same language, but those who reckon people only baptized as infants as not being truly baptized in essence have to believe infant baptism (or neglecting baptism upon profession) is a great sin.

So, again, what are the spiritual or eternal consequences of those believers deemed to be sinning in their practice of baptism?

I can't recall off-hand seeing any theologians deal directly with this specific aspect of the topic. If anyone can direct me to where this is addressed by reputable theologians I would appreciate it. I would also be interested in other PB members' (especially any pastors or scholars) thoughts on the matter.

 

[De Jager]

I am just speculating, but I wonder if (for the Presbyterian/Continental view) it might be helpful to see how different commentators handle the passage in Exodus about Moses neglecting to circumcise his son.

 

[Phil D.]

I am just speculating, but I wonder if (for the Presbyterian/Continental view) it might be helpful to see how different commentators handle the passage in Exodus about Moses neglecting to circumcise his son.

No commentary I've seen on that passage addresses this topic. For instance, the only thing Calvin mentions with regard to baptism is to refute the notion that the passage somehow makes allowance for women to baptize.

 

[A.Joseph]

I’m just going with my gut instinct, but the idea of me, a Christian with all that entails, not baptizing my beloved children is unthinkable. It’s a promise to them and myself that we are recipients of God’s grace and mercy…. His Living Word.

 

[De Jager]

The view of Matthew Henry:

1. The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son. This was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of her. Note, (1.) We have need to watch carefully over our own hearts, lest fondness for any relation prevail above our love to God, and take us off from our duty to him. It is charged upon Eli that he honoured his sons more than God (1 Sa. 2:29); and see Mt. 10:37. (2.) Even good men are apt to cool in their zeal for God and duty when they have long been deprived of the society of the faithful: solitude has its advantages, but they seldom counterbalance the loss of Christian communion.

2. God's displeasure against him. He met him, and, probably by a sword in an angel's hand, sought to kill him. This was a great change; very lately God was conversing with him, and lodging a trust in him, as a friend; and now he is coming forth against him as an enemy. Note, (1.) Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment, and particularly the contempt and neglect of the seals of the covenant; for it is a sign that we undervalue the promises of the covenant, and are displeased with the conditions of it. He that has made a bargain, and is not willing to seal and ratify it, one may justly suspect, neither likes it nor designs to stand to it. (2.) God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of his own people. If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I’m just going with my gut instinct, but the idea of me, a Christian with all that entails, not baptizing my beloved children is unthinkable. It’s a promise to them and myself that we are recipients of God’s grace and mercy…. His Living Word.

See, language like this doesn't help the credobaptist come to the paedobaptist view.

If you say that baptism is a promise to them that we are recipients of God's grace and mercy, are you saying that you children are saved because you believe and they are your children?

If you don't believe that, then in what way is Baptism any kind of promise that you are recipients of God's grace and mercy?

 

[De Jager]

See, language like this doesn't help the credobaptist come to the paedobaptist view.

If you say that baptism is a promise to them that we are recipients of God's grace and mercy, are you saying that you children are saved because you believe and they are your children?

If you don't believe that, then in what way is Baptism any kind of promise that you are recipients of God's grace and mercy?

This is just my view, and I don't pretend to speak for all reformed everywhere:

I think it could be better phrased "God's promises of grace and mercy in the gospel are sealed upon them". I certainly do not believe, when I baptize my child that "God has promised that this specific child, in the final analysis, will be saved", but that the gospel promises are really and truly made unto them, to be received with a hearty faith. Without a real and personal faith, the content of the promises will not be realized in the life of that child. That's why I would pray for the Holy Spirit to work a true and living faith in the hearts of my children - so they can embrace the promises of the gospel.

 

[A.Joseph]

They are part of the church. I want them included and raised under the Living Word. That can never be taken away from them. It is sealed with their baptism. I don’t see why we must view this for what it may not do. It is our testimony before God and man that they are included in the administration of the Word & Spirit. …

They are called. They are separate. They are blessed. How privileged we are. It should be celebrated. I believe God is honored when we offer our own, who we do not own, up unto to Him. That they may be used by Him for a Godly and honoring purpose. Our whole household should be offered up. Everything in our midst. All that we are accountable for. We give to Him that they will be received. But in a very special way, the children with whom He has blessed us. …

“Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

"God's promises of grace and mercy in the gospel are sealed upon them"

What does this mean though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But this phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.

What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?

 

[LilyG]

What does this mean though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But this phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.

What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?

Whatever the meaning, Paul views Abraham's circumcision similarly, both for those who had already showed true faith, and of those who were expected to show such in the future.

"He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4:11-12)

 

[Romans678]

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:37‭-‬41 ESV

Baptists and Presbyterians: what is the promise of God Peter is referring to here?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[De Jager]

What does this mean though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But this phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.

What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the question, it's a good one and an important one. With respect to "God's promises of grace and mercy" - I mean all the promises of God's covenant that have been unveiled ever since Genesis 3:15 - for example, that God would send a redeemer, that he would bless Abraham, that he would send the Holy Spirit, that he would forgive sins....including explicit promises of salvation like what Paul quotes in Romans 10:11 and what Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:6. If I had to summarize them, I would have to call them the "promises of the gospel". They are so numerous, I can't list them all!

As for them being "sealed upon" someone - I view the sacrament as a seal - an authenticating mark. This is based on Romans 4:11-12 where circumcision is described this way. The seal of a king would be placed upon a document to provide further "proof" that it was legitimate. So when the promises of God are "sealed" on someone, he is condescending to our level and providing a further "proof" that the promises are for real - that he really means it. The natural question then, is to whom or upon what should receive this seal? How does God apply this authenticating mark? We believe that it is in the application of baptism to believers and their households.

 

[Romans678]

Those the Lord calls to Himself will be justified and sanctified. Not just Jews (you and your children), but Gentiles (all who are far off) as well.

So you agree children aren't negated from this promise?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[De Jager]

What do you mean by "sealed upon them" though? The gospel promises are really and truly made to ANYONE who will receive them with hearty faith.

I mean in the same way that they were sealed upon Isaac when he was circumcised. God made covenant promises to Abraham and his seed, and then placed the seal of the covenant on him and on his seed. He literally placed the seal of his covenant on their bodies.

 

[Romans922]

I mean in the same way that they were sealed upon Isaac when he was circumcised. God made covenant promises to Abraham and his seed, and then placed the seal of the covenant on him and on his seed. He literally placed the seal of his covenant on their bodies.

Same way that they were sealed upon Ishmael.

The seal of sacraments is a guarantee IF THEY REPENT AND BELIEVE THE PROMISES FOR THEMSELVES they will receive the promises. That's what a seal is.

 

[Romans678]

We fence the baptistery like it's the Lord's Supper. What in the world are we doing here? [emoji2357][emoji2357][emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans922]

Yes, but now the offer is universal. Repent and believe the gospel and you will be saved. It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.

Actually, we use Scritpure to interpret Scripture. That's the reformation principle. Which means OT to interpret the NT and NT to interpret the OT. You can't interpret Revelation for example without the OT. It's impossible.
1. Both are a sign
Circumcision: Gen. 17:10-11; Rom. 2:28-29, 4:11
Baptism: Implication of Romans 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-12; Titus 3:5; Gal. 3:27. Also since,
signs point to a spiritual reality, see all the things signified below.

2. Both are a seal
Circumcision: Rom. 4:11
Baptism: See all the things promised (sealed) in the meanings below. Also see the
implication of what is sealed in Rom. 4:11-12; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30; 2 Tim. 2:19.

3. Both initiate into membership in the covenant community
Circumcision: Gen. 17:14; 21:4; Lev. 12:3
Baptism: Eph. 2:11-13; 1 Cor. 12:13

4. Both symbolize (language of ‘sign’) regeneration
Circumcision: Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4
Baptism: John 3:5; Col. 2:11-12; Tit. 3:5

5. Both point to cleansing from defilement
Circumcision: Jer. 4:4
Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14

6. Both are for those who are holy or “set apart” by a parent’s relationship to God
Circumcision: Ezra 9:2; Is. 6:13
Baptism: 1 Cor. 7:14

7. Both point to union with God
Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7,8; Col. 2:11
Baptism: Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8

8. Both point to the need for an inner spiritual experience, namely spiritual circumcision
and spiritual baptism
Circumcision: Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4; Col. 2:11
Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:12

9. Both were placed on whole households
Circumcision: Gen. 17:10,23-27
Baptism: Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16

10. Both were a sign and seal of the covenant of grace
Circumcision: Gen. 17:9-14; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11
Baptism: Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12

11. Both point to remission of sins
Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Col. 2:13
Baptism: Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Col. 2:11-13

12. Both oblige the recipient to walk in newness of life
Circumcision: Gen. 17:9; Deut. 10:12-16
Baptism: Rom. 6:3-4

13. Neither one saves or benefits a person automatically (ex opera operato)
Circumcision: Jer. 9:25-26; Rom. 2:25-29
Baptism: Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29

14. People can be saved without either one
Circumcision: Rom. 4:10; Luke 1:44,47 before circumcision (v. 59); so too Jer. 1:4-5
Baptism: Luke 23:43; Acts 10:2-47

15. It is a sin to neglect this sign
Circumcision: Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26
Baptism: Luke 7:30

 

[Romans678]

Yes, but now the offer is universal. Repent and believe the gospel and you will be saved. It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.

Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it. This ain't it, brother.

The Passover unveils the mercy God and continues in the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of old unveils the tireless intercession of Christ Jesus our Lord in the most Holy of Holy Places above. The Throne of King David points the dominion Christ possess over the the entire realm of existence.

I wonder how Christ viewed the OT below:

"And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke 24:25‭-‬27 ESV

Or how about this oldie but goodie:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17‭-‬20 ESV

This is probably the second or third time I've repeated this question in multiple boards now, but I'll shoot for three:

If the Passover was the progenitor of the Lord's Supper, what was Baptism represented as in the OT?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it. This ain't it, brother.

The Passover unveils the mercy God and continues in the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of old unveils the tireless intercession of Christ Jesus our Lord in the most Holy of Holy Places above. The Throne of King David points the dominion Christ possess over the the entire realm of existence.

I wonder how Christ viewed the OT below:

"And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke 24:25‭-‬27 ESV

Or how about this oldie but goodie:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17‭-‬20 ESV

This is probably the second or third time I've repeated this question in multiple boards now, but I'll shoot for three:

If the Passover was the progenitor of the Lord's Supper, what was Baptism represented as in the OT?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

My grammar is horrible [emoji2357]. Forgive me y'all.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.

Brother, in my estimation, you have recently been guilty of the same, such as when you said infant baptism is "antithetical to the message of the gospel that God will save those whom he chooses to regardless of culture or genealogy." While I responded with only a head-scratching emoticon at first, I found such a statement to be shockingly uncharitable and misrepresentative of the Reformed position on infant baptism.

 

[Romans678]

Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.

It's not uncharitable and unloving to shed light on a view that deems the OT near irrelevant in the interpretation of the NT. This sentiment is NOT shared by NT writers. Scripture is not a barreling train going 10,000 MPH from Genesis to Revelation. It is an perfectly crafted tapestry with perfectly interwoven colors and shapes that share unity, order, and beauty in the fabric.

Dear brother, it's ok if you don't read it. I read your comments without complaining. I think you could do the same for me.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Hart]

It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.

Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it.

Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.

@Jason F.,

Given that this is a confessionally Reformed discussion board, I’d say your comment (“We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa”) warrants some pushback. Don’t be offended, but that’s about as un-Reformed a statement as one could make.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

@Jason F.,

Given that this is a confessionally Reformed discussion board, I’d say your comment (“We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa”) warrants some pushback. Don’t be offended, but that’s about as un-Reformed a statement as one could make.

How is this any different than Augustine saying “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."?

 

[Jason F.]

I've deleted my posts. Some were poorly worded, and I apologize for not properly conveying the intended message.

 

[Tom Hart]

How is this any different than Augustine saying “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."?

I’d say it’s very different, actually. Are you asking me to walk you through it?

 

[Phil D.]

[M. Henry] Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment, and particularly the contempt and neglect of the seals of the covenant; for it is a sign that we undervalue the promises of the covenant, and are displeased with the conditions of it. He that has made a bargain, and is not willing to seal and ratify it, one may justly suspect, neither likes it nor designs to stand to it. (2.) God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of his own people. If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.

I guess I'm not too surprised there haven't been many responses to the actual question asked in the OP. I can see how various answers could pose some awkward difficulties, and therefore risks painting a respondant in a bad light. But, nonetheless, I think the question is both valid and an important one to consider. Church history is a certain witness to that.

The issue of conscience, in the context quoted above, does get to the next level of my question.

Presumably, both Reformed paedos and credos genuinely regard the Bible as God's infallible and inerrant Word, the final rule for all of worship and life. They both sincerely study the doctrine of baptism. In then acting according to the light God has given them, I don't see how it could be said that either is contemning or neglecting the doctrine of baptism. Moreover, they are both acting in good conscience (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). Yet in coming to considerably different understandings on the matter, they both can't be right - at least in the realm of tangible sacramental practice. And, therefore, according to the basic definition of sin (flawed, or missing the mark), one party is sinning.

So, again, what are the spirtual consequences for the erring party (and those in their orb)? Any brave takers? Pastors?

 

[Grant]

So, again, what are the spirtual consequences for the erring party (and those in their orb)? Any brave takers?

Phil (ignoring your love for Chick-Fila which gives you a huge bias), would this not be the standard answers for the consequences of sin in general?

 

[Phil D.]

Would they not be the standard answers for the consequences of sin in general?

Sure, yet what, more specifically, would you have in mind?

 

[Romans678]

I've deleted my posts. Some were poorly worded, and I apologize for not properly conveying the intended message.

It's OK brother. I'm a literal barbarian (I was Army for 6 yeads) so I tend to be pretty blunt with my approach. We're family and sometimes we get on each other's nerves from time to time. Iron sharpens iron.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

It's OK brother. I'm a literal barbarian (I was Army for 6 yeads) so I tend to be pretty blunt with my approach. We're family and sometimes we get on each other's nerves from time to time. Iron sharpens iron.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

*years

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk