What does baptism add?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solparvus

Puritan Board Senior
What’s your answer when someone questions what baptism adds to a child? Two couples—one Paedo and one credo—have kids, both hear the Word, both attend church, both are faithfully taught the Word, both learn catechism, both receive godly discipline, but what does baptism add?

I had heard Ted Donnelly explain that baptism is not our commitment to God (ie. Sign of our profession) but His to us. That would in some part answer the question for me. However, from where in Scripture can I say this?
 
Harley, a quick answer would be, assuming you accept the close identity of circumcision to baptism , then the encouragements, promises and assurances given to Abraham apply (with appropriate biblical theological qualifications) to the baptised.

Genesis 17:1 Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.

I would also look to to Romans 4:11 , here Paul says that circumcision was to Abraham a sign and seal , promise authentication of God's justifying grace, I.e. God's commitment to justify all who come to him by faith.
 
What’s your answer when someone questions what baptism adds to a child? Two couples—one Paedo and one credo—have kids, both hear the Word, both attend church, both are faithfully taught the Word, both learn catechism, both receive godly discipline, but what does baptism add?

I had heard Ted Donnelly explain that baptism is not our commitment to God (ie. Sign of our profession) but His to us. That would in some part answer the question for me. However, from where in Scripture can I say this?

Baptism adds a person, old or young, to the visible church.
 
Understanding the covenant relation between God and his people is crucial here. Baptism signifies the promise that God has made to his people: they are his and he will carry them through judgment. Baptism also numbers the child amongst the visible church.
 
Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
 
Though it is not a directly biblical image, I like to use the analogy of an engagement ring. Baptism means that the child is affianced to the Lord God. Baptism means that God means His promises: if the child comes to faith in the Lord Jesus, then he will be saved. Ask any woman whether a proposal means anything different with an engagement ring versus without, and you will get a fairly uniform answer, I'm guessing. It means that the young man is quite literally putting his money where his mouth is. Baptism means that God is putting His Son's blood where He says He is putting it: applied to the child's sins the moment that faith is present. Baptism means that we do not have a God reluctant to forgive, but Who is eager to forgive.
 
Ditto to what has already been said.

Covenant membership has its benefits! Or as Samuel L. Jackson would say, “What’s in your wallet?”
 
Last edited:
Though it is not a directly biblical image, I like to use the analogy of an engagement ring. Baptism means that the child is affianced to the Lord God. Baptism means that God means His promises: if the child comes to faith in the Lord Jesus, then he will be saved. Ask any woman whether a proposal means anything different with an engagement ring versus without, and you will get a fairly uniform answer, I'm guessing. It means that the young man is quite literally putting his money where his mouth is. Baptism means that God is putting His Son's blood where He says He is putting it: applied to the child's sins the moment that faith is present. Baptism means that we do not have a God reluctant to forgive, but Who is eager to forgive.
Great thought, brother!
If I may ask, though, does the child already have that declaration before baptism? 1 Cor 7:14 makes it seem like the child is already set apart through the covenant with the parents alone. I think the op is really asking what happens at the baptism. I could be wrong though.
 
Ryan, a child is a member of the covenant by virtue of his birth, attached to the external administration, because of his covenantal relationship to his parents. Baptism is the solemn acknowledgment of such. It's a little like how a Ph.D. works. Technically, a person owns a Ph.D. when he has successfully defended his thesis. However, the ceremony is the formal acknowledgment before the world that it is so.
 
The church is more than a place to learn about Jesus. It is where we belong to Jesus.

It is nearly impossible to effectively disciple a child while also treating that child as a kingdom outsider. How can you teach a child to serve and love his Savior, and to pray to his Father in heaven, unless that child first knows he belongs to God?

Note: This is a huge problem with the decisionist mindset. When folks regard a church-family child as a heathen until he decides to say the "sinner's prayer," they really have no grounds on which to disciple that child when he is younger. Many parents struggle to make sense of this.

The best Baptists I know avoid the decisionist trap and consider their children as, in some sense, belonging to God. And they should. But their claim ends up feeling rather weak—not so much to me, but usually to them. I hear them appeal to a loosely-defined principle of God working within families or through the Word, or to a child dedication ceremony (which has dubious biblical warrant), or to evidence that the child exhibits some signs of faith and therefore might be a believer.

But with a child who's been baptized, I can say, "Look, you belong to your Savior! You have a responsibility to learn and live up to the covenant promises placed on you, with all of the joy, hope, and confidence this entails." This is a great benefit in discipleship, which should begin at a young age. The biblical pattern is that baptism comes before discipleship. This is because belonging comes before discipleship.

There are other advantages to baptism, too. But this is the one that stands out to me, very practically, when I'm teaching a kid.
 
The child is a member of the church before baptism. Baptism is the sign and seal of God’s covenant promise to the child, and for the activity of faith by the parents. The parents are given the added grounds, apart from their love and desire for their child’s salvation, of the covenant promise, “I will be a God unto you and to your children, and to their offspring” For me this is the foundation of perseverance in prayer for the unsaved in our family. This gives something solid and a cause of expectancy, to sue my God for them, rather than my natural love for their conversion.
 
What’s your answer when someone questions what baptism adds to a child? Two couples—one Paedo and one credo—have kids, both hear the Word, both attend church, both are faithfully taught the Word, both learn catechism, both receive godly discipline, but what does baptism add?

I had heard Ted Donnelly explain that baptism is not our commitment to God (ie. Sign of our profession) but His to us. That would in some part answer the question for me. However, from where in Scripture can I say this?
Scripture would a testimony to the Lord having saved us, and would be the sign of now being in member standing in a local assembly of believers
 
Ryan, a child is a member of the covenant by virtue of his birth, attached to the external administration, because of his covenantal relationship to his parents. Baptism is the solemn acknowledgment of such. It's a little like how a Ph.D. works. Technically, a person owns a Ph.D. when he has successfully defended his thesis. However, the ceremony is the formal acknowledgment before the world that it is so.
Water Baptism is the sign before God and others that we have already received Jesus as our Lord/Messiah, and that we are now part of a local assembly of believers in Him.
 
David, this thread is in the paedo-baptism answers forum. The OP was not intended to start a debate between paedos and credos. You should not be posting in this thread.
 
Moderator Note:

As Rev. Keister noted above, refresh yourselves on the rules regarding the two Baptism sub-forums:

Paedo:
A place where only paedobaptists may answer questions posed to clarify the Confessional understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism. The forum is not for debate of paedobaptism.

Credo:
A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessional understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism. The forum is not for debate of credo-baptism.

Persons running afoul of the rules above will be given a one-month "vacation" from participating in the particular thread in question.
 
Ditto to what has already been said.

Covenant membership has its benefits! Or as Samuel L. Jackson would say, “What’s in your pocket?”

Scott, I have to reprimand you here for completely misquoting Samuel L. Jackson. What he actually says is "What's in your wallet?" The difference between pocket and wallet is quite vast, of course. ;)
 
There’s a lot of thoughts here that I still want to digest, but between this and the Philpot note on another thread it seems like the better question might be, “Why disciple your children if you don’t believe they are disciples?”

That is, why should parents do like Abraham and command their children after them? If you are going to enforce the Word and obedience to it, command obedience as in the Lord, and if a Paedobaptist pastor is going to hold Sunday schools and catechism classes, isn’t he just being consistent with his view that the children are disciples and church members? And isn’t the Baptist who doesn’t claim his children to be disciples inconsistent to give them discipleship? Even to command obedience in the Lord assumes that the children are disciples, since it’s not external obedience commanded, but heart obedience (which command doesn’t necessarily assume unregeneracy either).

And if you give them discipleship, why not baptism as well according to Mt 28:19? But if you won’t give baptism, why then give discipleship?

Will think more, but thank you all.
 
Shame on me! Heresy.
Edited for the sake of clarity.

For your heretic-like language, Scott, you are hereby sentenced to the punishment of your choice (in this pronouncement, we Calvinists affirm both justice and free will;)): either 1) you may cease from good beer, whiskey and cigars for the period of 24 hours (we don't want to be seen as too harsh) or 2) you may whip yourself with leftover garland from the papist holiday...........:flamingscot:
 
Last edited:
To ensure I understand what was said, I looked at Genesis 17, and I saw that God did intend that Abraham’s descendants would be His people, and He would be their God; not only the spiritual descendants, but the physical also.

He gives circumcision as the covenant, and we know that circumcision is a seal of all the spiritual blessings of salvation, like an engagement ring is a seal of an upcoming marriage.

So, although the Gospel is free to all, salvation is free to all, and none who come in faith would be cast out in either the OT or NT, God has especially bound the descendants of Abrahamic be His people in a way that He did not do for others by putting them in a covenant where He promised to be their God, and the benefits would be theirs by faith—just like Abraham. But also, even while they did not believe, He would still be their God and act accordingly and treat them as His church, even if He broke them off later because of persistent unbelief.

So, like in any other contract, terms can be laid out and both parties agree to do something, but neither party has a right to the benefits of the contract until their end is fulfilled, though they are still parties. In this case, God does all the work and provides all the benefits, and the one “condition” is for the Israelites to receive it by faith. Until then, they don’t have the benefits promised; and they may forego the benefits if they stay in unbelief.

Have I understood?
 
Harley, I would say you're close. It is more complicated than saying that the Abrahamic descendants were cut off. When Jesus came, He re-lived Israel's story in such a way that He redefined what it is to be an Israelite. Now, the true Israelite is one who is a spiritual Israelite, who has the same faith as Abraham, which is faith in Jesus Christ. So, some of Abraham's descendants are cut off, but by no means all. This is a little off topic, but since you are (quite rightly) seeking to connect the seal of the covenant with the covenantal history, it seems appropriate to seek a clear understanding of that covenantal history.
 
Harley, I would say you're close. It is more complicated than saying that the Abrahamic descendants were cut off. When Jesus came, He re-lived Israel's story in such a way that He redefined what it is to be an Israelite. Now, the true Israelite is one who is a spiritual Israelite, who has the same faith as Abraham, which is faith in Jesus Christ. So, some of Abraham's descendants are cut off, but by no means all. This is a little off topic, but since you are (quite rightly) seeking to connect the seal of the covenant with the covenantal history, it seems appropriate to seek a clear understanding of that covenantal history.

This brings up a few more questions, as I need help connecting the dots:
- How does Christ’s life relive Israel’s history?
- Weren’t the spiritual Israelites the true Israelites previous to Christ coming?
- Wouldn’t your statement imply a change in the membership structure of the AC? Ie., only believers in the administration?
 
"Out of Egypt I called my son." Mt.2:15. And see the many other connections the Gospel writers make, such as Luke calling Christ's death his exodus, 9:31. This isn't a false-appropriation, made legitimate by divine permission. It's a theological claim about how Jesus (in part here) is fulfilling the meaning of Israel's existence. The people look at Jesus, and they are invited to see him through the lens of him living out (recapitulating) Israel's national existence, with this difference: He doesn't fail.

He is the One, True Israelite. He's the Only Obedient Servant and Son, who therefore is the only heir to the Promise. Everyone else is disinherited. That is the horror of Act.2. They've cut themselves off, doing the one thing that would accomplish that: killing the heir. Now he's risen, and claiming his inheritance. There is literally no one else. The good news is: he'll have the repentant back. "The promise is to you, and to your children, and to those who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call."

This statement is a re-rehearsal of the Abrahamic covenant.

Hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top