Paedo-Baptism Answers Works based salvation though child baptism

[NaphtaliPress]

Just a reminder this thread is in paedobaptist answers only.
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.

 

[greenbaggins]

Morgan and James, the way Paedobaptists understand passages like Romans 6, etc., is that Paul is describing what baptism points to. The sign of baptism is somewhat like a sign that says "Chicago 20 miles." If one didn't have GPS and was lost, trying to get to Chicago, the sign would be rather reassuring that one was on the right track.

So a sacrament has three parts (or two, depending on how one is counting; I prefer three): the physical sign, the spiritual reality to which that sign points, and the sacramental relationship between the sign and thing signified, which is Spirit-given faith. If one only has the physical sign, and not faith (which can happen in either Baptist or Presbyterian circles!), then the sign serves rather to judge the person the longer they rebel against God's call of repentance. On the other hand, Presbyterians believe that the order of when one gets the sign and the thing signified does not matter. A person could be a believer first and then get the sign, or they could get the sign first, and then be given faith in Christ's blood. Romans 4 proves it doesn't matter with regard to circumcision, and Colossians 2 shows the connection between circumcision and baptism. So, in Romans 6 (and other places), a phenomenon called "sacramental language" is occurring, by which attributes of the thing signified are sometimes attributed to the sign. Baptist, on the other hand, believe that the order of sign then thing signified is vitally important.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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."

To expand a bit upon what Lane and others rightly noted. Here is what the Westminster Confession says about Sacraments in general (and we can apply it to Baptism specifically).

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

and from our Confession concerning baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

Romans 6 uses the word baptism in this context to signify what happens in our vital union with Christ in HIs death and resurrection. In fact, those who look to it principally as "imagery" for the mode of baptism miss the very important issue of what Christ's death and resurrection accomplishes for believers who are united by faith to Him.

It's not that the water of baptism causes us to die to the power of sin nor that we are raised in newness of life, it is that we are united to Christ and these are accomplished as we are in Him.

Baptism is used to talk of this spiritual reality and this is where we pair the above language with the visible sacrament itself.

The act of baptism is the sensible sign (water) while the thing signified (or put another way, the graces conferred) is union with Christ in His death and ressurrection.

But notice that we also say that the grace conferred in the Sacrament is not just because a person is baptized but is given to those "to whom the graces belong" (which is the elect).

Notice what we are preserving here.

1. We are preserving the union between the sign (baptism) and the thing signified (union with Christ).
2. That the graces signified are not conferred by the mere act but by the Spirit.

What we are also doing is avoiding the un-Biblical dilemma that the Baptist thrusts himself into.

What do I mean?

You quoted Romans 6 thinking that you avoid this problem for you reason: "We are baptizing elect people of whom Romans 6 is true."

Are you really?

How do you know they are elect?

It always gets back to this, where the Baptist thinks that a set of verses that talk about election informs them that they are supposed to create a Church that only has elect people baptized and elect people in membership, but then runs into the dilemma that they don't know who the elect are.

Thus, for a Baptist, the actual water of a particular baptism might signify the union with Christ that they think a person already possesses (since you wait to baptize until you think someone is elect) or it might signify nothing at all other than a person getting wet (since you recognize they are false professions). The problem you run into Biblically is that neither Christ nor His disciples called what they were doing anything other than "baptism" regardless of whether someone continued in the faith or fell away.

The point is that, Biblically, the reality of what a Biblical sacrament stands for doesn't change based on the rebellion or falling away of any to whom it is administered. Baptism signifies what it signifies and it leaves condemned any who receive the sign and later rebel (just as those who were circumcised in the flesh but never in their hearts). Yet, for those who draw near in faith (the elect) the act of baptism encourages and builds up as it is a seal of God's promise that they have received and can trust upon.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich @Semper Fidelis , I really appreciated your saying we are to consider our baptized infants as disciples, and raise them so. That gave me to understand more clearly a significant nuance in our child-rearing! Thank you.

Hello Morgan and James,

I think you are coming to understand that our paedobaptist view is profoundly connected to our view of the covenant of grace we hold to. In a moment I will refer you to an earlier thread that, in dealing with paedobaptist and anti-paedobaptist differences, goes deeply into the matter of the covenant(s). An excerpt from near the end of that thread:

When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobate imposters among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.​

​

The New Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).​

​

This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: “for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized”. For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19). The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit.​

If this interests you – and I see you both are seeking to understand how we see – you may find greatly edifying this thread on the issues of baptism and covenant(s). My first significant post in that thread is here (post #68), but the thread actually starts here.

 

[Romans922]

Just a reminder this thread is in paedobaptist answers only.
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.

Yes, that’s why I was a little hesitant to respond with more.

 

[SeamusDelion]

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.

I just ignore people like this. The administrator posted and cleared everything up for me, and not I understand the difference between sign and seal in their position.

 

[Romans678]

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.

I starting to see a common theme here with the Sacraments. It is all about what God's profession to His people, not our confession to Him. What God has promised must take precedence over our mere confession of faith in baptism. We could be lying in our "confession" but God is true and will carry out his promises and judgements faithfully. Am I hitting the mark or am I missing it? Forgive me if I am missing the mark. It's quite difficult for me to verbalize what I am learning here. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[De Jager]

I starting to see a common theme here with the Sacraments. It is all about what God's profession to His people, not our confession to Him. What God has promised must take precedence over our mere confession of faith in baptism. We could be lying in our "confession" but God is true and will carry out his promises and judgements faithfully. Am I hitting the mark or am I missing it? Forgive me if I am missing the mark. It's quite difficult for me to verbalize what I am learning here. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I am no minister, but I believe you are hitting the mark.

The sacraments are signs (pointing to spiritual things) and seals (God's guarantee of his promises, like a signet ring). These promises of the gospel are to be sealed to believers and their seed.

However, promise does not equal fulfillment. For example, baptism does not correspond with election, head for head. When we baptize our children, we are not saying "God has elected this specific person" or even that "God will definitely save this specific person". What we are saying is that God has promised to save this specific person if they but trust in him. Without faith in Christ, a person will never experience what is signified and sealed in baptism.

One might say - that sounds Arminian! Are you saying that God has done his part, you must do yours? Yes and no. Yes - we call our children to exercise a personal faith in Christ - but no, we do not believe that they have the capability to do that in and of themselves! We pray that the Spirit would grant them the faith to believe the promises sealed to them.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I starting to see a common theme here with the Sacraments. It is all about what God's profession to His people, not our confession to Him. What God has promised must take precedence over our mere confession of faith in baptism. We could be lying in our "confession" but God is true and will carry out his promises and judgements faithfully. Am I hitting the mark or am I missing it? Forgive me if I am missing the mark. It's quite difficult for me to verbalize what I am learning here. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Bingo. This was one of the critical points that turned me from credo- to paedo-, or should I say “covenantal.” Fesko lays out this point well in his book, particularly in his discussion of Zwingli.

Another big one was a “lightbulb” moment when reading Romans 4.

 

[Santos]

I am no minister, but I believe you are hitting the mark.

The sacraments are signs (pointing to spiritual things) and seals (God's guarantee of his promises, like a signet ring). These promises of the gospel are to be sealed to believers and their seed.

However, promise does not equal fulfillment. For example, baptism does not correspond with election, head for head. When we baptize our children, we are not saying "God has elected this specific person" or even that "God will definitely save this specific person". What we are saying is that God has promised to save this specific person if they but trust in him. Without faith in Christ, a person will never experience what is signified and sealed in baptism.

One might say - that sounds Arminian! Are you saying that God has done his part, you must do yours? Yes and no. Yes - we call our children to exercise a personal faith in Christ - but no, we do not believe that they have the capability to do that in and of themselves! We pray that the Spirit would grant them the faith to believe the promises sealed to them.

Very well put. I have been catechizing my children for 3 years now, and the further I go the closer I come to a household understanding of baptism.

This may have just pushed me over the edge. I need to pray.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I just ignore people like this.

The person mentioned here is a minister of the gospel (and a long-time PB member), and like all the ministers who are members here, a great source of theological help for learners. Easy to misunderstand brevity, but exercising charity can help a bunch.

 

[greenbaggins]

I starting to see a common theme here with the Sacraments. It is all about what God's profession to His people, not our confession to Him. What God has promised must take precedence over our mere confession of faith in baptism. We could be lying in our "confession" but God is true and will carry out his promises and judgements faithfully. Am I hitting the mark or am I missing it? Forgive me if I am missing the mark. It's quite difficult for me to verbalize what I am learning here. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Anthony, this is exactly right. Paedos believe that baptism is something, ultimately, that God does, not part of our confession of faith. He is putting His sign and seal on this covenantal child. It is God's promise (Acts 2) that salvation is in Christ.

Another analogy I like to use (and it is not original with me, I think Bryan Chapell used it first) is that baptism is like an engagement ring. God is laying out an arranged marriage between this child and His Son. I often ask the congregation during a baptism this question that helps them understand the value of baptism if it does not save, in and of itself: "If young man A proposes marriage to a young lady with an engagement ring, and young man B proposes marriage to a different young lady without an engagement ring, does the ring make any difference?" Ask (most) any woman whether the ring makes a difference, and she will say yes. Why? Because the ring means the young man is putting his money where his mouth is. Baptism means that God is putting His Son's blood where his Words aim. As the seal of the Word, baptism is the visible proclamation of salvation in Christ's blood. It therefore works in a very similar way to the Word, only aiming at different senses than the Word. The Word aims at the heart through the ears. Baptism is a visible sermon aimed at the heart through the eyes, and one's sense of touch. If baptism therefore is a visible sermon, then infants are to receive it, even if they do not understand what it is all about. We don't take our children out of the service (hopefully) just because they may not understand everything in the service. They grow into it as they get used to it.

This gets at another important point about our children. Children can grow up into faith. Not everyone's conversion is a "violent" one like Paul's. Many Baptists actually tacitly acknowledge this point with their baby dedications. It is a Christian home, not a heathen one. And, while one should not assume conversion of the children simply by means of covenantal promises or baptism, neither should one assume that the child is a heathen, since the Bible is quite clear that infants can be born again even in the womb (witness John the Baptist's using his mother's womb as a pulpit!). It can be just as dangerous to teach the child to doubt because "of course the child is a heathen," versus assuming the child is converted simply because they go to church, etc. We always need the gospel. And that is precisely why Presbyterians baptize infants. We always need the gospel at every point of our lives. Baptism preaches the gospel through visual and tactile means. Infants may not be able to articulate salvation. But they can understand love and a seed form of faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Recommend those interested in a really good study of the meaning of the word Sacrament and its connection to Christ to watch this:

 

[Romans678]

Recommend those interested in a really good study of the meaning of the word Sacrament and its connection to Christ to watch this:

Will do!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk