Paedo-Baptism Answers Works based salvation though child baptism

[SeamusDelion]

Recently my Christian brother raised a very heart ranching issue with me that I am very concerned about. This is an apologist street preacher. We have different theological stances but have been able to come together with one mind, body spirit and LORD.

His question was very alarming and something I've never thought of before. When I was defending my Presbyterian/Reformed brothers and sisters of their stance of baptism he asked me why they baptize kids, and then continued to ask if they believe children go to hell. I said I was unsure but that would be quite a statement to make, he then assured me that the only reason for baptizing a child would be because you believe they are going to hell and so they baptize them... This would be a works based salvation through baptism holding to the sacrament as a requirement for salvation, and should thus be deemed a heresy.

My question to you is this:

Do you believe children go to hell?
Do you baptize Children in accordance to this believe
If none of the above applies please explain as to why and also please explain the reason for baptizing children.

Scripture references welcomed, and preferred but would also like to know traditional information's as well.

Sorry if this has been answered before, I did no due diligent's to look. (Just being honest)

 

[VictorBravo]

You posted this in the Credo forum but appear to be asking paedobaptists for an answer. Do you want the thread moved?

 

[SeamusDelion]

You posted this in the Credo forum but appear to be asking paedobaptists for an answer. Do you want the thread moved?

oh I am sorry yes please move this for me, thanks you for looking

 

[VictorBravo]

Done.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I truly hope no children go to hell. Presbyterian infant baptism isn't a matter of heaven/hell in that sense. It is an acknowledgement of God's faithfulness to His covenantal people, and a declaration that this child is a part of God's covenant.

 

[De Jager]

We do not baptize our children in order to prevent them from going to hell. We baptize them because as members of the covenant, they ought to receive the covenant sign. Water baptism is an external sign and the application thereof does not change their position with God, it merely recognizes the position they already have - being within the covenant of grace. Of course, we pray that the spiritual thinga signified in the baptism become a reality in the lives of our children and that's why we teach them. If they do not become a reality and these children reject God, they will go to hell, and it will be worse for them than for someone who tasted nothing of God's goodness. As for the case of the children of believers dying in infancy, we do not believe that their destination is impacted by their receiving the sign or the lack thereof. The obvious reference would be the child of David and Bathsheba who died prior to being circumcised. And yet David prophesied saying "I will go to him". I think your friend is greatly mistaken. No serious reformed believer who knows anything about anything believes that by baptizing their child they are ensuring that the child goes to heaven.

 

[SeamusDelion]

I truly hope no children go to hell. Presbyterian infant baptism isn't a matter of heaven/hell in that sense. It is an acknowledgement of God's faithfulness to His covenantal people, and a declaration that this child is a part of God's covenant.

How can you baptize them as a Child of Gods Covenant when people are not Chosen due to heritage anymore, but the covenant is reserved for those whom believe and trust in Christ for salvation? In the old testament the Covenant was for the Jews but today God have declared a new covenant for all nations. Just trying to understand this more, sorry if I come off as wrong.

We do not baptize our children in order to prevent them from going to hell. We baptize them because as members of the covenant, they ought to receive the covenant sign. Water baptism is an external sign and the application thereof does not change their position with God, it merely recognizes the position they already have - being within the covenant of grace. Of course, we pray that the spiritual thinga signified in the baptism become a reality in the lives of our children and that's why we teach them. If they do not become a reality and these children reject God, they will go to hell, and it will be worse for them than for someone who tasted nothing of God's goodness. As for the case of the children of believers dying in infancy, we do not believe that their destination is impacted by their receiving the sign or the lack thereof. The obvious reference would be the child of David and Bathsheba who died prior to being circumcised. And yet David prophesied saying "I will go to him". I think your friend is greatly mistaken. No serious reformed believer who knows anything about anything believes that by baptizing their child they are ensuring that the child goes to heaven.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

Basic conclusion is that:

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

Thank you, I will relay this information to my brother in Christ defending your clear points. <3

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

How can you baptize them as a Child of Gods Covenant when people are not Chosen due to heritage anymore, but the covenant is reserved for those whom believe and trust in Christ for salvation? In the old testament the Covenant was for the Jews but today God have declared a new covenant for all nations. Just trying to understand this more, sorry if I come off as wrong.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

Basic conclusion is that:

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

Thank you, I will relay this information to my brother in Christ defending your clear points. <3

Presbyterians believe the New Covenant still has a mixed element to it, so the administration of it is given in the same way circumcision was given to God's people in the Old.

Baptists recognize only the spiritual New Covenant with the elect. Presbyterians recognize a true spiritual New Covenant made with only the elect like Baptists do, but also recognize the outward administration of it being similar to the Old Covenant. There are lots of Biblical references to justify this position.

Blessings friend!

 

[SeamusDelion]

Presbyterians believe the New Covenant still has a mixed element to it, so the administration of it is given in the same way circumcision was given to God's people in the Old.

Baptists recognize only the spiritual New Covenant with the elect. Presbyterians recognize a true spiritual New Covenant made with only the elect like Baptists do, but also recognize the outward administration of it being similar to the Old Covenant. There are lots of Biblical references to justify this position.

Blessings friend!

Thank you for this. I am very aware of my own theology, being a reformed baptist or a Particular Baptist for a better word, but I did not know this was the belief of the presbyterian brothers. I love this forum I have learned so much since I have been active again. Thank you.

 

[De Jager]

How can you baptize them as a Child of Gods Covenant when people are not Chosen due to heritage anymore, but the covenant is reserved for those whom believe and trust in Christ for salvation? In the old testament the Covenant was for the Jews but today God have declared a new covenant for all nations. Just trying to understand this more, sorry if I come off as wrong.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

Basic conclusion is that:

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

Thank you, I will relay this information to my brother in Christ defending your clear points. <3

We definitely, definitely do NOT baptize our children as some "work" to get them into heaven. However,


I never said that "children don't go to hell". All I said is that we don't baptize our children in order to get them into heaven, or prevent hell, or something like that. We baptize them based on their covenant status. Whether any children (of believers or not) who die in infancy or early childhood go to hell or not is a separate issue. For that there are a variety of opinions. What we should all agree on is that it would be appropriate for them to go there, based on their covenantal link to Adam, and based on their depraved nature. However, most reformed believers would say that God shows grace to at least some children or to those who are incapable of believing. The Westminster Confession refers to certain "elect infants" who die in infancy but does not go so far as to say that all children of believers who die in infancy are elect. The Canons of Dort do conclude that believing parents should have confidence that their children who die in infancy are with the Lord. In both cases, they various redormed camps do not believe this grace is shown because of anything in them (the children) but only because of their connection to the covenant of grace through their parents. So just as the infants were carried through the Red Sea to salvation without their knowledge, so these children of believers who die in infancy would be saved. Neither confession (Westminster or Dort) mentions anything about the fate of thr children of unbelievers and I find no compelling reason from scripture whatsoever to believe that those children go to heaven if they die, sad as that is.

On a side note, I know you mentioned earlier you are in Toronto and were possibly looking for a church. You should definitely check out New Horizon United Reformed Church and their Pastor Mitchell Persaud. He would no doubt be happy to explain all this to you far better than I can. And I also imagine that he would not be one to enforce too many covid rules but would likely leave you free in that regard.

 

[De Jager]

How can you baptize them as a Child of Gods Covenant when people are not Chosen due to heritage anymore, but the covenant is reserved for those whom believe and trust in Christ for salvation? In the old testament the Covenant was for the Jews but today God have declared a new covenant for all nations. Just trying to understand this more, sorry if I come off as wrong.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

Basic conclusion is that:

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

Thank you, I will relay this information to my brother in Christ defending your clear points. <3

You also posted about the distinction between old and new covenants. I believe that you are creating a distinction that is not in the text. I would encourage you to continue to ask questions about that. You will find out that it has always been, from day one, about believing in the promises of God, and not about ethnic heritage. Remeber, Abraham was a heathen who was called by God. Those who believe are the true children of Abraham. That didn't start in the New Testament. That started immediately, as soon as the covenant was made. This is shown when we consider the generation of Israel who fell in the wilderness. For why did they not enter into the land? Because they weren't of the correct ethnic backgrouns? No, but because of unbelief.

 

[Romans922]

How can you baptize them as a Child of Gods Covenant when people are not Chosen due to heritage anymore, but the covenant is reserved for those whom believe and trust in Christ for salvation? In the old testament the Covenant was for the Jews but today God have declared a new covenant for all nations. Just trying to understand this more, sorry if I come off as wrong.

Thank you for clearing this up for me.

Basic conclusion is that:

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

Thank you, I will relay this information to my brother in Christ defending your clear points. <3

If you desire to learn our position, then your conclusion or summary of what we believe has to match what we believe. You can’t misrepresent our view. All you’ve done is create a strawman.

 

[Christopher Robin]

All the Jews were circumcised, but not all were saved. It is exactly the same way under the New ("new" with respect to Moses, not Abraham) Covenant. The outward sign does not and cannot impart eternal salvation in either situation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Children don't go to hell
therefor you could not possibly baptize them unto salvation
therefor baptism is not a requirement for salvation according to Paedo-Baptism theology.

This is an unreliable summary of the paedobaptist position. It is not accurate to the statement from which you tried to draw it (the previous post quoted).

Some people do believe that ALL the babies go to heaven, if they die young. Christian parents are summoned to hope in divine promises when their babies die; we have promises, we should hope in them, whereas the unbelievers have not that assurance, having rejected the word of God. But still believers must allow that, if God never marked even their covenant-child before the foundation of the world for salvation, he has done no one any wrong. It happens that some think this scenario simply never, ever occurs.

Other people believe that some babies do go to hell. Either position is consistent with the Presbyterian position. Baptism alone guarantees no one--neither adult nor child--a ticket to heaven. Baptism doesn't guarantee (not a perfect index of) election.

The Presbyterian position is summarized by the words of our Confession (10.3), that "...elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." No explicit reference to baptism.

The Romanist have (or had) a doctrine about unbaptized babies, that they could not go to heaven (though they did not consign them to hell). They taught the limbus patrum, an imaginary place (similar to imaginary purgatory) where such children end up in the afterlife, having no mortal sins to remove, but not having the grace of Roman baptism. This is all tied to papist sacerdotal sacramental system. Presbyterians don't teach anything remotely like this, start to finish.

Some Baptists (not all by any means!) have taught an inverse doctrine, namely that there are NO elect infants, and all such persons--since they manifestly have not a conscious exercise of faith in Christ--go to hell. This makes some parents particularly anxious to get their child old enough to pray a "sinner's prayer," so they will have some hope of seeing him/her in heaven if they should die young. Baptism then follows the prayer as an ordinary work. This is quite the hopeless system, its only virtue being some kind of rationalist consistency.

The views above, in a list:
1) All dying babies go to heaven
2) All dying babies of believers go to heaven (these being members of God's elect, in no way conditioned on successful baptism)
3) Some/most dying babies of believers go to heaven (based on divine promises Christians should believe)--this is my position
*--some dying babies of unbelievers may go to heaven; however, there aren't any plain promises of God in the Bible on which we may base this hope.
4) All Romanist-baptized dying babies go to heaven (because they were baptized/saved, removing stain of original sin, and belong to the right church)
5) No dying babies go to heaven (obviously not being members of God's elect, demonstrable because child never had chance to believe unto salvation)

 

[SeamusDelion]

We definitely, definitely do NOT baptize our children as some "work" to get them into heaven. However,


I never said that "children don't go to hell". All I said is that we don't baptize our children in order to get them into heaven, or prevent hell, or something like that. We baptize them based on their covenant status. Whether any children (of believers or not) who die in infancy or early childhood go to hell or not is a separate issue. For that there are a variety of opinions. What we should all agree on is that it would be appropriate for them to go there, based on their covenantal link to Adam, and based on their depraved nature. However, most reformed believers would say that God shows grace to at least some children or to those who are incapable of believing. The Westminster Confession refers to certain "elect infants" who die in infancy but does not go so far as to say that all children of believers who die in infancy are elect. The Canons of Dort do conclude that believing parents should have confidence that their children who die in infancy are with the Lord. In both cases, they various redormed camps do not believe this grace is shown because of anything in them (the children) but only because of their connection to the covenant of grace through their parents. So just as the infants were carried through the Red Sea to salvation without their knowledge, so these children of believers who die in infancy would be saved. Neither confession (Westminster or Dort) mentions anything about the fate of thr children of unbelievers and I find no compelling reason from scripture whatsoever to believe that those children go to heaven if they die, sad as that is.

On a side note, I know you mentioned earlier you are in Toronto and were possibly looking for a church. You should definitely check out New Horizon United Reformed Church and their Pastor Mitchell Persaud. He would no doubt be happy to explain all this to you far better than I can. And I also imagine that he would not be one to enforce too many covid rules but would likely leave you free in that regard.

Thank you this clears things up for me, and I never even took into consideration that this was for believers only. Please forgive me if I come off wrong, I am genuinely seeking truth on your theology of this so I can better understand this position to be able to defend it against my brothers position. My summary was not meant to be ignorant or anything of this manner but just an easy way I could conclude such a deep understanding of what you were saying however, this message has cleared that up for me. again, Thank you, brother.

You also posted about the distinction between old and new covenants. I believe that you are creating a distinction that is not in the text. I would encourage you to continue to ask questions about that. You will find out that it has always been, from day one, about believing in the promises of God, and not about ethnic heritage. Remeber, Abraham was a heathen who was called by God. Those who believe are the true children of Abraham. That didn't start in the New Testament. That started immediately, as soon as the covenant was made. This is shown when we consider the generation of Israel who fell in the wilderness. For why did they not enter into the land? Because they weren't of the correct ethnic backgrouns? No, but because of unbelief.

Yes, this is my understanding I was taught and clearly it was wrong, I will seem more answers on this position. Thank you for clearing this up for me as well, you are most gracious.

If you desire to learn our position, then your conclusion or summary of what we believe has to match what we believe. You can’t misrepresent our view. All you’ve done is create a strawman.

Ahh you've said this to me before. I believe however, we should connect and have a little chat because you don't seem to like me or understand what it is I am trying to get at here in this post. I have not created any strawman, what ever that even is and I most definitely did not misrepresent your view as I have not represented it to anyone yet. My reason for this post was to learn the view that was being misrepresented by a Christian brother who is a world famous street preacher with a huge audience. You can check the youtube page posted in my signature if you like. However if I am wrong on any points there is much room to learn, grow and be corrected. I do not think your post is edifying me even slightly, because it lacks any substance whatsoever clearing up anything for me that I was wrong about...

Please if you are going to try to teach me, do it in an edifying and loving manner so I could take heed, listen and correct myself. If you do not wish to engage with me in this way I would just kindly ask that you could just refrain yourself from my posts. I am not here to argue and engage in any conflict over a misunderstanding on your part. I am here to be honest, learn and be corrected where I go wrong.

Blessings.

 

[SeamusDelion]

This is an unreliable summary of the paedobaptist position. It is not accurate to the statement from which you tried to draw it (the previous post quoted).

Some people do believe that ALL the babies go to heaven, if they die young. Christian parents are summoned to hope in divine promises when their babies die; we have promises, we should hope in them, whereas the unbelievers have not that assurance, having rejected the word of God. But still believers must allow that, if God never marked even their covenant-child before the foundation of the world for salvation, he has done no one any wrong. It happens that some think this scenario simply never, ever occurs.

Other people believe that some babies do go to hell. Either position is consistent with the Presbyterian position. Baptism alone guarantees no one--neither adult nor child--a ticket to heaven. Baptism doesn't guarantee (not a perfect index of) election.

The Presbyterian position is summarized by the words of our Confession (10.3), that "...elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." No explicit reference to baptism.

The Romanist have (or had) a doctrine about unbaptized babies, that they could not go to heaven (though they did not consign them to hell). They taught the limbus patrum, an imaginary place (similar to imaginary purgatory) where such children end up in the afterlife, having no mortal sins to remove, but not having the grace of Roman baptism. This is all tied to papist sacerdotal sacramental system. Presbyterians don't teach anything remotely like this, start to finish.

Some Baptists (not all by any means!) have taught an inverse doctrine, namely that there are NO elect infants, and all such persons--since they manifestly have not a conscious exercise of faith in Christ--go to hell. This makes some parents particularly anxious to get their child old enough to pray a "sinner's prayer," so they will have some hope of seeing him/her in heaven if they should die young. Baptism then follows the prayer as an ordinary work. This is quite the hopeless system, its only virtue being some kind of rationalist consistency.

The views above, in a list:
1) All dying babies go to heaven
2) All dying babies of believers go to heaven (these being members of God's elect, in no way conditioned on successful baptism)
3) Some/most dying babies of believers go to heaven (based on divine promises Christians should believe)--this is my position
*--some dying babies of unbelievers may go to heaven; however, there aren't any plain promises of God in the Bible on which we may base this hope.
4) All Romanist-baptized dying babies go to heaven (because they were baptized/saved, removing stain of original sin, and belong to the right church)
5) No dying babies go to heaven (obviously not being members of God's elect, demonstrable because child never had chance to believe unto salvation)

Thank you for this post brother, this is most edifying and shows me the correct position with plain understanding. I will continue my learning on this subject and continue to read the Westminster Confession. Peace and love.

 

[Taylor]

Ahh you've said this to me before. I believe however, we should connect and have a little chat because you don't seem to like me or understand what it is I am trying to get at here in this post. I have not created any strawman, what ever that even is and I most definitely did not misrepresent your view as I have not represented it to anyone yet. My reason for this post was to learn the view that was being misrepresented by a Christian brother who is a world famous street preacher with a huge audience. You can check the youtube page posted in my signature if you like. However if I am wrong on any points there is much room to learn, grow and be corrected. I do not think your post is edifying me even slightly, because it lacks any substance whatsoever clearing up anything for me that I was wrong about...

Please if you are going to try to teach me, do it in an edifying and loving manner so I could take heed, listen and correct myself. If you do not wish to engage with me in this way I would just kindly ask that you could just refrain yourself from my posts. I am not here to argue and engage in any conflict over a misunderstanding on your part. I am here to be honest, learn and be corrected where I go wrong.

With all respect, friend, I think you are overreacting to what Pastor Barnes said. In his defense, I cannot see how his post was unedifying, mean, or inappropriate. Sure, Pastor Barnes is typically one of the more direct and terse posters on the PB, but that doesn't mean his behavior is out of line.

 

[SeamusDelion]

With all respect, friend, I think you are overreacting to what Pastor Barnes said. In his defense, I cannot see how his post was unedifying, mean, or inappropriate. Sure, Pastor Barnes is typically one of the more direct and terse posters on the PB, but that doesn't mean his behavior is out of line.

unfortunately this was not the only time this man has called me a strawman, and the last time I tried to make a joke about it and said I was not made out of straw and lifted weights and he told me my joke was not funny and ill timed. We all have our opinions but when I even tried to lighten the situation it did nothing. Again here he is making accusations when I am only trying to learn. If he were to explain to me where I went wrong and how I could improve on this I would have responded differently as you can see I easily took correction in this post and it edified me. Finally, I am defending myself as a new person learning reformed theology, I have very little knowledge on. I am only human and prone to make mistakes, and this is the very reason for this thread, so that I can learn. If I am wrong in something this does not mean I went and ran out side to tell the world what I thought and I think that if me and this person had better history on the boards the reaction would have been different as well, but instead he continues to call me a strawman and does not provide me with anything that I could learn from. I even suggested we have a personal chat to clear things up.

I would much rather this thread is used for my learning and understanding of this topic I posted about instead of having to defend myself continually by others.

If you would like to take this to the DM's I would love to continue this conversation there, but moving forward I just please ask that we keep this on topic so I can easily reference posts I am in need of.

blessings

 

[SeamusDelion]

Those reared within the covenant community would have the greatest opportunity to hear the good news and savingly come to faith. In Christ, the hope of the gospel, given initially to a small set of families, is now going to every tribe and nation.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is it the belief of the reformed to hold to the doctrines of grace? Namely limited atonement? If so, I don't understand how anyone could have any opportunity to come to faith if it is God whom draws in His people, Chooses, and grants repentance?

Sorry if this is confusing, I am trying to grasp the reality here with the best possible questions.

 

[Taylor]

unfortunately this was not the only time this man has called me a strawman, and the last time I tried to make a joke about it and said I was not made out of straw and lifted weights and he told me my joke was not funny and ill timed. We all have our opinions but when I even tried to lighten the situation it did nothing. Again here he is making accusations when I am only trying to learn.

You are confusing Pastor Barnes with me. I was the one you made that "joke" to. And, again here just as back then, you are confused as to what a straw man is. Pastor Barnes is not calling you a straw man. A "straw man" is a type of argument wherein one misrepresents a view in order to make it easily refuted, yet in reality all they have done is argue against something their opponent doesn't even believe. A "straw man" is not necessarily an argument, either. It is really synonymous with "misrepresentation." All Pastor Barnes is saying is that, in his view, you have misrepresented paedobaptist beliefs.

Also, just a little exhortation: If you want the Puritan Board to be profitable (as we all want it to be), please stop labeling every pushback an "accusation." Saying you have erected a straw man is not an accusation; it is an attempt to further discussion.

 

[Romans678]

Is it feisable to call paedobaptism "Covenant Baptism" as well? Sometimes I use that term to help distinguish positions when discussing these matters with my wife and children.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

Is it feisable to call paedobaptism "Covenant Baptism" as well? Sometimes I use that term to help distinguish positions when discussing these matters with my wife and children.

I think this is not only possible, but preferred—that, or "household baptism."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's just "baptism."

OK, you need more descriptors sometimes to say exactly what you mean. But my point is that baptism is a theological term that takes a definition; and we only add words like paedo or credo or Reformed or Roman, etc., because of the need to explain some specific aspect of the subject, or differentiate what one party understands is truth vs. error.

 

[SeamusDelion]

You are confusing Pastor Barnes with me. I was the one you made that "joke" to. And, again here just as back then, you are confused as to what a straw man is. Pastor Barnes is not calling you a straw man. A "straw man" is a type of argument wherein one misrepresents a view in order to make it easily refuted, yet in reality all they have done is argue against something their opponent doesn't even believe. A "straw man" is not necessarily an argument, either. It is really synonymous with "misrepresentation." All Pastor Barnes is saying is that, in his view, you have misrepresented paedobaptist beliefs.

Also, just a little exhortation: If you want the Puritan Board to be profitable (as we all want it to be), please stop labeling everything you don't like an "accusation." Saying you have erected a straw man is not an accusation; it is an attempt to further discussion.

oh my apologies then to Pastor Barnes for accusing him wherein I was wrong. Please do forgive me.

As for this new understanding of what a strawman is (apparently Wikipedia doesn't explain it correctly) I know understand what Pastor Barnes is saying.

Let me clarify something here, My original post is not my own view. I am asking on behalf of a friend (as funny as this may sound its truth) however, I didn't know the arguments.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

James,

I hesitated to answer as I wasn't sure I had time to give it attention to help you get a handle on the way we understand what baptism signifies and to whom it is to be administered.

We, like the London Baptist Confession of Faith, believe that all became guilty in Adam in the Fall and were subject to the wrath and curse of God. We are all born not only guilty but corrupt in our natures so that all sin proceeds form that corruption and that we are justly deserving God's wrath.

We also both confess that God made a second Covenant, the Covenant of Grace with Christ and, in Him, all the Elect. Only those in Christ are Elect.

The fundamental difference in our theology is that the Baptist under their confession do not consider any administration of God's Covenants to be the Covenant of Grace until the New Covenant.

When a Baptist looks at the Old Covenant he sees a mixture with a promised Covenant of Grace that will be with Christ and all the Elect, but he sees primarily an administration of the elect and the reprobate participating in visible Covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) that exist to preserve an elect Seed for the coming of Christ at which time the Covenant of Grace is established in the New Covenant with Christ. They reason that if the mediators (OT Priests, Kings, Prophets) and the participants are imperfect then they cannot properly be considered the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant is made with Christ and, in Him, the Elect. That Covenant is "perfect" and there is no "imixture" of the bad king or reprobate member but only the Elect.

Presbyterians and the Reformed do not think this way. We see a Covenant of Grace under various administrations whose ultimate substance and fulfillment is Christ. We do not deny the imperfection of the mediators but we see the various signs and sacraments to unite all who visibly participate to and outward administration of the one Covenant of Grace. This is why the author of Hebrews can point us current believers to those in the wilderness and point out how they "rejected the Gospel" and fell away due to a lack of faith. We do not fundamentally see the sign of circumcision as physical sign only, but as a "sacrament" that has both visible and spiritual realities attached. Not everyone who was circumcised was elect but circumcision signified a circumcision of the heart (something only God could produce) and the Holy Spirit sealed that reality to those who truly drew near in faith.

Thus, when a Baptist reads of Isaac (as an infant) being circumcised he sees only a mixed Covenant (not really the Covenant of Grace) where Isaac receives it as a sign of things to come and as a way to preserve a people who will bring forth the Mediator who will inaugurate the Covenant of Grace into the future.

When a Presbyterian reads of Isaac's circumcision, he reads of a sacrament in which the visible sign (circumcision) signifies faith in the God who will bring forth the Promise of salvation. Isaac does not possess the *reality* of that sign merely by receiving it, but it belongs to God to bring that about by His sovereignty according to the purposes of election. That Isaac possesses faith doesn't owe to his circumcision but the sign does confirm to him a seal since God has promised to save him and so it operates on that level - he has faith and the sign sifnifies faith and salvation and so Isaac possesses both the sign and the seal.

When Isaac circumcised Esau and Jacob, he was not God and he obeyed the commandment to circumcise his children not as a bare sign of some physical future reality but in hope and on the promises of God. That Esau possessed a sign that signified faith does not nullify the fact that the sacrament of circumcision points to a reality that God promises salvation to all who believe. Esau was reprobate and, by his own actions and decisions, spurned the promise of God in his flesh and was justly condemned. Jacob, according to the election of God, was given a new heart and, for him, his circumcision was a seal of God's Covenant of Grace as well as a sign.

Fast forward to Christ and His death and resurrection. He commands to make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything He has commanded.

The Baptist reads that command in light of his Covenant commitments.

Ah, he reads, now we have the reality of the Covenant of Grace and, he infers that since the New Covenant is perfect and only has the Elect within that we ought to only baptize the elect.

Now, at this point, he ought to be stumped because he doesn't know who the elect are.

But he is not deterred.

He moves on from this point and reasons: "Ah ha! I see in the NT that those who profess faith in Christ are those baptized and so I will only baptize those who profess Christ because, after all, the NT is perfect and those who are regenerate profess faith in Christ."

A disciple to the Baptist looks something like this. A disciple is someone who has been taught the tings of Christ and has been brought from death to life and is convinced he is a follower of Christ. He confesses his faith in Christ to the Church and the Church says: "Ah, we have a professor in Christ. We think he is therefore elect and regenerate and we are now going to baptize him on the basis that we think his profession is genuine. By doing so, we are upholding the "perfection" of the New Covenant that consists only of Christ and His elect."

The "speaker" in baptism in the Baptist schema is the believer. Because his profession is thought to be genuine then his baptism is valid. If at the time of baptism his profession was invalid then he was never really baptized. Thus, as a believer goes through the twists and turns of life he may later be assailed in his faith and conclude he never really believed. What is he to do? He is to profess faith NOW with a genuine profession and the Church will now baptize him for the first time. I say first time because it may be the second, third, fourth, ... time he has gotten wet but he was never really baptized. Why? Because only the elect are every really baptized and a person with a false profession is never baptized in Baptist thinking.

So, how does a Presbyterian think?

Well, Biblically. I say that with a smile even though I believe it.

We believe that Baptism is not the person's speech but God's speech. It is God Who makes promises in baptism.

If you read Matt 28:18-20, Christ commands the making of disciples by baptizing and teaching them everything He has commanded.

This completely blows a Baptist mind but we believe that a person is made a disciple is first by baptizing them and then teaching them. We baptize in order to teach.

We don't believe that the word disciple means elect. We believe that a person is made a disciple in the New Covenant to teach them the things of Christ and it is up to the work of the Holy Spirit to convert the hearts of any disciple. We believe that the Preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are the means the Holy Spirit uses in the lives of disciples to convert them.

Now, notice I talked about disciples first because we believe this about adults. An adult who professes faith in Christ is not presumed to necessarily be elect in the eyes of the Church. We don't have eyes to see that, nor is it our vocation to know this. We baptize adults who repent of their sins and turn in faith to Christ. Baptism is a sign that separates them from the world and visibly joins them to the visible Church. They are now disciples. Baptism does not, by its mere administration, confer salvation. It signifies salvation and a promise of salvation from God by the announcement of the minister.

We believe that an adult can have a false profession and fall away from the faith. We even believe that someone could have a false profession at baptism and, through years of preaching and the Sacraments, suddenly one day come to a saving knowledge where the Holy Spirit converts that individual. Every time I preach I remind people, as the author of Hebrews does, that Today is the day of salvation. If Today, you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.

If that person believes that word Today then what of his baptism years earlier? Well, remember what I wrote. Baptism is not my speech, it is God's Promise. Thus, the person with first-time genuine faith can look to the Promise of God in his baptism years earlier and know that God's promises are yes and amen. The Holy Spirit has now sealed and made real what the sign signified. The Sacrament of Baptism thus ties together sign and seal in a way where the person can look to his physical baptism and know with the Spirit that he is sealed with God's Promise. His baptism never did rest on the validity of his profession at the time of its administration but always on the promise of God.

So now what of our infant children? Well, I don't know if you connected the dots yet, but we consider them disciples. We baptize them as disciples in order to teach them everything God has commanded. We don't baptize them because they are elect but because, as the children of those in Covenant relationship with God, God has commanded the discipling of the children of believers. He has always commanded that His disciples disciple their children as members of the Covenant and the Covenant of Grace is now perfectly inaugurated and its Mediator is now in heaven as our Prophet, Priest, and King but it hasn't changed the basic rule of faith for families in the Covenant.

Our children are not guaranteed election or guaranteed faith. We train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord and, if they come to faith, they are like adult professors. The promise of their baptism is yes and amen.

If I was then going to summarize my answer to your questions, then, like Bruce, we do not know the status of infants as elect or reprobate. We are not commanded to doubt the salvation of our children who die as infants or small children. We do not believe that they are saved by the administration of baptism but, like any other sinner, only if they are united to Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit to choose and save anyone is inscrutable and so we don't presume to have the mind of God but look only to the Word where we are given confidence that those who are in Covenant with God do have a reason to trust that God has saved their children.

The reason we baptize them has nothing to do with our belief that baptism confers salvation by its administration but solely on the basis that, because thy are our children, they are in the Covenant and the sign of baptism belongs to them with all the duties for raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord that this implies.

 

[SeamusDelion]

Today is the day of salvation

I often say this very thing, when I street preach. Holding fast to the thought that we could easily die at any given moment and tomorrow is ALWAYS too late.

I don't know if you connected the dots yet, but we consider them disciples. We baptize them as disciples in order to teach them everything God has commanded

This right here, explains everything I need to know. I totally understand now why you baptize children, because you believe you baptize then teach. This makes sense now. Thank you for this long post that was VERY informative.

 

[Morgan]

Semper Fidelis, that was a good overview, thanks. One question, since the first part of Romans 6 gives us a picture of what baptism is and clearly describes the old man dying and being raised into a newness of life, how can baptism apply to an unbeliever knowing this? I would suppose you do not think this verse refers to water baptism and if not, what does it refer to?


Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

 

[SeamusDelion]

Semper Fidelis, that was a good overview, thanks. One question, since the first part of Romans 6 gives us a picture of what baptism is and clearly describes the old man dying and being raised into a newness of life, how can baptism apply to an unbeliever knowing this? I would suppose you do not think this verse refers to water baptism and if not, what does it refer to?


Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

Amen! This and many other verse's are the very reason I am a Reformed Baptist.

 

[Romans922]

There is still a failed understanding of Sign and Seal.

 

[Morgan]

There is still a failed understanding of Sign and Seal.

Without you explaining, your post does absolutely nothing in helping us to understand. An explanation with scripture would be very helpful in understanding your comment.