Even if neither of the immediate parents were believers at the time the child was baptised, or the grandparents or great grandparents, by getting the child baptised, they are bringing the child into the visible church and the visible bond of the covenant and formally engaging the child to be Christ's in marriage, even if they don't understand/fully understand what they are doing.
In the OT the efficacy of circumcision of a child of a Gentile who had himself and his family engrafted into the covenant people, didn't depend upon the Gentile parents having true faith, but that they clearly
professed to have the true faith is shown by them getting their child circumcised.
The visible church consists of those who profess to have the true faith and their children, not the elect and their (elect) children.
This lady should thank God for the way that He has led her to Him in in His Providence, and that in His Providence she was placed in the visible Church, among the outwardly covenantal people, at her baptism.
She should also medidate upon and improve her baptism every day. See Larger Catechism Q. 167. She should meditate upon the fact that she was baptised as a child, that baptism involves the washing away of filth from the flesh, and that it signifies the washing of regeneration in Christ's blood by the Holy Spirit from the filthiness of sin, that she experienced at regeneration/baptism in the Holy Spirit. She is truly engrafted into Christ by Holy Spirit baptism/regeneration which was anticipated in her water baptism and entered the fellowship of the Triune God, into whose Name she was baptised.
Her faith will be strengthened (sealed) by meditating on all these things which her water baptism signifies.
How much of this meditating on the meaning of water baptism by the unsaved and saved goes on, is a moot point.
Are people more often baptised and then forget about it, or are given no encouragement to remember it and to contemplate its meaning ? For the unsaved it is an encouragement to seek the reality of the thing signified. For the save it is an encouragement to seek daily spiritual cleansing.
Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." (John 13:8-10, ESV)
It signifies these things whether or not her parents were true believers. It is impossible for us to know as infallibly as we would like whether another person is a true believer or not, anyway. They professed to be Christians.
She should reflect on the fact that her baptism as a child was Christ's engagement ring and ceremony to her, that by God's grace she has responded in love to Christ, and that this true love should be outwardly celebrated in the Lord's Supper, the formal marriage feast of Christ and His people and the outward sign of those who have responded in faith to Christ's overtures of love, and wish to continue in the covenantal bond and love.
Baptism properly done in the Name of God, shouldn't be repeated, anymore than circumcision should be repeated. Part of the symbolism of water baptism is that it's only done once. Spiritual baptism can only happen once to a person.
Can someone be born again, unborn again and then born again again? Sounds like an extreme form of Arminianism.
-----Added 12/8/2009 at 11:43:40 EST-----
No one said anything about \"loss of faith\", but about no faith to begin with. It happens ALL THE TIME here in good ol' Europe that parents are self-confessed atheists but still think their children better be baptized, 'cause \"you never know what good it might do\". Faith? Never.
Do you ever have a pastor/minister say "no" when said parents present a child for baptism?
I'm understanding your point here- the pastor would not second guess the actual salvation of a parent presenting an infant child for baptism.
But, so that those reading would understand, actually, in (biblical) presbyterian churches one would have to be a member to have their infant baptized, and that would have required an examined, credible profession of faith on the part of the parent for membership, even in the visible church.
If I'm understanding, that's the dilemma Mr. Heck is describing here,
the parent never has made even pretense of professing faith in Christ, let alone being an (examined) member of the visible church. Still, the church let them in, and performed the baptism.
I know this happens, because it happened with me, unbelieving parents present their infant child for baptism- what happens to make them want to do it? In my case, my parents were the product of "common grace" in the godly homes they were raised in but had not yet come to faith. My grandfather's faith was instrumental in having the infant baptized.
So why do unbelievers, at least at that time do it? Is it any evidence of God working in their life? Common grace?
Even deeper, could this be an example of theological concurrence, where the intent of the parents is evil really (don't believe in God but covet something He gives), but God's good purpose is redeeming the infant, in spite of all that?
In some Biblical Presbyterian churches e.g. the Free Church of Scotland, a baptised/baptismal member ("adherent") who is not a communicant member, if the session has reason to believe that they have a credible profession of faith, inspite of the fact that the person has not yet "come forward" to take the Lord's Supper for the first time - maybe because of lack of assurance of faith - will receive baptism for his/her child.
See e.g.
The Days of the Fathers in Ross-Shire: Amazon.co.uk: John Kennedy: Books
which discusses this.