What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't resist answering this but I couldn't do so in the forum it was posed originally. Standby as I respond.
APuritansMind
Puritan Board Junior
Interestingly, here, one of the Baptists actually calls what Baptists do with children discipling. Precisely the issue. Those that are to be discipled in the Christian faith are to be baptized per Matthew 28:18-20. If you are not baptized, you are not a disciple of Christ.
Now, what difference does Baptism make? I answered this in another thread but the answer was pretty deep into a long thread so I'm happy to make sure this is well understood because it marks the profound difference between a Sacramental view of baptism and a view of it as a bare symbol.
Core to the Christian faith is the notion that grace precedes human activity. This includes faith. God moves, God loves first, and human love answers. God promises and salvation is brought about.
Now, at this point, the Reformed Baptist will answer in the affirmative. The problem is that the ordinance, as a visible sign, actually denies this in a visible sense to the community of faith.
How so?
Because the sign is merely retrospective. That is to say that it looks backward at what it believes God has done and then bases the decision to administer the ordinance on the perceived faith of the individual. Profession is the basis and not the promise of God.
What's the difference?
Well, profession may be delayed due to mental immaturity, it may be false at the time of profession, or it may even be ultimately impossible due to birth defect. But, the Baptist insists, the response of man is the basis for determining if an ordinance of the Church is going to be administered. Thus, the visible, historical symbol that teaches people through the witness of the ministerial action of the Church proclaims: "Because of the profession of man, we hereby baptize."
The Reformed view, in contrast, is not retrospective but believes that God's grace is really present for worthy recipients. Where the Baptist restricts the means of grace to simply the preaching of the Word, the Reformed view the Sacrament itself as holding forth Christ and Him crucified and the Holy Spirit sovereignly works through the historical actions of the Church toward the conversion of Saints. This is why the Scriptures are comfortable in interchangeably talking about visible signs using the same language and terms for benefits that can only apply to the elect. This is because the Holy Spirit communicates and connects the sign and the thing signified so the two can be thought of together. The sign can be distinguished from the reality of union with Christ but it cannot be separated.
The Baptist will guard against any such connection disallowing that the sign of baptism administered admits to anything but the visible Church, which must in turn be seperated from the New Covenant itself. The Reformed, however, believe the Sacraments are the connecting tissue between the invisible Church and the visible because the Church administers on the commission of Christ while the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the application of the real benefits of grace to the elect.
So, what's the difference for the kid who can't understand all of this? It's the difference between a Church that communicates the Gospel in the Sacraments and a Church that pedagogically undermines it to a degree in the administration of bare Ordinances.
In the Reformed Church, the baptism of infants is a profound token that grace precedes faith. You notice this difference every time a Baptist objects that an infant can't manifest faith. Precisely right but God can Promise and God's grace can precede that visible manifestation and part of the Gospel proclaiming effect in Reformed baptism is the notion that God will be sovereign in the salvation of this child. He's commanded this child's baptism and promised to save him if he trusts Christ and the Holy Spirit has sovereignly given grace in a similar manner to how the proclamation of the Gospel holds forth Christ. It is no more up to the Church to pronounce its guess on election for the child than it is for her to guess the election of an adult professor.
And so, because the child is baptized, he is a disciple in Christ's Church. If he is not then he is not a disciple. And, because he is a disciple, he has full participation in the visible means of grace of the Church. Christ is regularly held forth in the Word and the Sacraments for the conversion of the child according to the sovereign pleasure of God.
Now, what difference does Baptism make? I answered this in another thread but the answer was pretty deep into a long thread so I'm happy to make sure this is well understood because it marks the profound difference between a Sacramental view of baptism and a view of it as a bare symbol.
Core to the Christian faith is the notion that grace precedes human activity. This includes faith. God moves, God loves first, and human love answers. God promises and salvation is brought about.
Now, at this point, the Reformed Baptist will answer in the affirmative. The problem is that the ordinance, as a visible sign, actually denies this in a visible sense to the community of faith.
How so?
Because the sign is merely retrospective. That is to say that it looks backward at what it believes God has done and then bases the decision to administer the ordinance on the perceived faith of the individual. Profession is the basis and not the promise of God.
What's the difference?
Well, profession may be delayed due to mental immaturity, it may be false at the time of profession, or it may even be ultimately impossible due to birth defect. But, the Baptist insists, the response of man is the basis for determining if an ordinance of the Church is going to be administered. Thus, the visible, historical symbol that teaches people through the witness of the ministerial action of the Church proclaims: "Because of the profession of man, we hereby baptize."
The Reformed view, in contrast, is not retrospective but believes that God's grace is really present for worthy recipients. Where the Baptist restricts the means of grace to simply the preaching of the Word, the Reformed view the Sacrament itself as holding forth Christ and Him crucified and the Holy Spirit sovereignly works through the historical actions of the Church toward the conversion of Saints. This is why the Scriptures are comfortable in interchangeably talking about visible signs using the same language and terms for benefits that can only apply to the elect. This is because the Holy Spirit communicates and connects the sign and the thing signified so the two can be thought of together. The sign can be distinguished from the reality of union with Christ but it cannot be separated.
The Baptist will guard against any such connection disallowing that the sign of baptism administered admits to anything but the visible Church, which must in turn be seperated from the New Covenant itself. The Reformed, however, believe the Sacraments are the connecting tissue between the invisible Church and the visible because the Church administers on the commission of Christ while the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the application of the real benefits of grace to the elect.
So, what's the difference for the kid who can't understand all of this? It's the difference between a Church that communicates the Gospel in the Sacraments and a Church that pedagogically undermines it to a degree in the administration of bare Ordinances.
In the Reformed Church, the baptism of infants is a profound token that grace precedes faith. You notice this difference every time a Baptist objects that an infant can't manifest faith. Precisely right but God can Promise and God's grace can precede that visible manifestation and part of the Gospel proclaiming effect in Reformed baptism is the notion that God will be sovereign in the salvation of this child. He's commanded this child's baptism and promised to save him if he trusts Christ and the Holy Spirit has sovereignly given grace in a similar manner to how the proclamation of the Gospel holds forth Christ. It is no more up to the Church to pronounce its guess on election for the child than it is for her to guess the election of an adult professor.
And so, because the child is baptized, he is a disciple in Christ's Church. If he is not then he is not a disciple. And, because he is a disciple, he has full participation in the visible means of grace of the Church. Christ is regularly held forth in the Word and the Sacraments for the conversion of the child according to the sovereign pleasure of God.
Thanks for the great post, Rich!
Just trying to clarify what you mean by the above. Besides baptism, which is no doubt very important, how are the other 'visible means of grace' participated in by an infant? They are not allowed the Supper, and as far as I know, many Paedo churches put infants in a nursery where they do not hear the preaching.
Means of grace are not like an infused activity where the more you get exposed to them, the more grace you have inside of you. Obviously, I think the Word proclaimed is not magical so that truth dawns by osmosis.
Baptism may be the only visible proclamation of God's saving intent for a child who is born with profound retardation but, because it's God purpose to save and not up to the Church to guage if profession is impossible, the child has not lost any of the benefits that God will sovereignly grant him. In a Baptist Church, the Church has denied him any such signification.
Something I've been careful to note is that the Holy Spirit is sovereign above so, if you notice our language, we believe grace is really conferred to those whom the Holy Spirit ordains. The means of grace are shorthand for a holding forth of the person and work of Christ so, instead of an infused activity, we believe identification is made with Christ and all the benefits that flow from that to include regeneration, conversion, definitive sanctification, and the like.
I believe children should be present for the hearing of the Word no less than adults and, in the sense above, the Word is another way in which the Church holds forth Christ just as it did at Baptism and, in both cases, the Holy Spirit works through it. Some respect for the work of the Holy Spirit is in order but it might be that regeneration occurred at Baptism while the Word may convert later in life. It may also be that subsequent preaching sanctifies the hearer.
As for the Lord's Supper, once again it is not as if the child is "missing something" because he's not being infused with a substance every week. As with Baptism, we believe there is a Sacramental union between the Supper and the reality of feeding upon Christ and Him crucified so that the believer is strengthened and sanctified but, per the command of God, it is for discerning recipients. I think some might get the impression that the child is missing out until they're mature but this borders on superstition assuming that grace is additive instead of seeing God as acting sovereignly and that includes using the means of grace in history to convert and sanctify every child of God according to His good pleasure and not a timeline we feel comfortable with.
Thanks for this: "The means of grace are shorthand for a holding forth of the person and work of Christ so, instead of an infused activity, we believe identification is made with Christ and all the benefits that flow from that to include regeneration, conversion, definitive sanctification, and the like."
I get that. But what do you mean by, "And, because he is a disciple, he has full participation in the visible means of grace of the Church." What would be an example of 'partial' participation?
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
And here is the 
again, I love just riding piggy-back on you guys wisdom
again, I love just riding piggy-back on you guys wisdomeyeballkid
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey, fellas. I'm very new to the Puritan Board, and this is my first time ever posting anything public in this forum. Discussions on Baptism always grab my interest. I have a VERY hard time being patient with baptists when it comes to the covenant. For example, what do baptists do with texts like Ezekiel 37:25 and other OT prophecies about the New Covenant that include the children of believers in the covenant? Excuse me if this has already been discussed, and please direct me to the right place.
Probably bad wording on my part. I meant to distinguish between a view that sees the child as having no status as a disciple.
From the standpoint of the Church, a child is a full member that has all the benefits of membership that any other member has save those which are inappropriate for his age.
There is a tendency to make the error that profession or mental capacity makes one more of a disciple than another but a disciple is one who is being trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Another error is to think that the person is closer to Christ because they can articulate their participation in Him. While our profession is a good gage of our status in Christ, we tend to forget that it's Christ's naming of us as His own that has priority over our response. The Sermon on the Mount indicates there are many who will profess their fealty to Christ but the issue is that He never knew them.
It seems like this is confirmation for my points above. You measure the capacity for a child to get any benefit out of the initiating grace of God on the basis of his mental acuity for it. I don't claim that a 1 year old is taking in the propositional truth being exposited or that the Word is understood in a way that sanctifies in the same way that an adult will. I do think, however, that the discipline of exposure to these things forms a vocabulary and grammar that serves as a basis when the child grows in understanding. Not everything that is gracious is extraordinary but even our own growing in grace is very ordinary, which is why we take the time to study certain things so that we're able to synthesize concepts later or use certain tools of learning to dig into the Word.
Children are to be disciplined from an early age to call upon the name of the Lord in ordinary ways that are used by God to extraordinary ends according to His good pleasure.
-----Added 1/1/2009 at 04:20:37 EST-----
This really isn't the forum to answer those sort of questions The baptism forum has plenty of threads on your question.
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
This link will take you to the forum on the Puritan Board specifically for asking credo-baptists questions about their practice and beliefs. There are only a few threads there, so you can read through them pretty quickly, and create a new question as well: there are many credos on the board who will be more than happy to answer your sincere questions.
And this general forum, the free-for-all
Baptism - The PuritanBoard
Baptism - The PuritanBoard
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
This sermon of Spurgeon is filled with Pastoral Wisdom concerning the household and the children of believers.
I actually find his arguments often reinforce a Paedo Covenantal Baptism hermeneutic of Scripture.
Rather unexpected one might think (or on the other hand maybe not,
Spurgeon knew and valued the Reformers and the Puritans like few).
Hope it will be helpful.
C. H. SPURGEON Household Salvation November 5th, 1871 PDF attached
I actually find his arguments often reinforce a Paedo Covenantal Baptism hermeneutic of Scripture.
Rather unexpected one might think (or on the other hand maybe not,
Spurgeon knew and valued the Reformers and the Puritans like few).
Hope it will be helpful.
C. H. SPURGEON Household Salvation November 5th, 1871 PDF attached
- Status
Similar threads
Paedo-Baptism Answers
How are children of believers regarded and what does their salvation look like?
