J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
You’re equating willingness with regeneration.
General Pattern of Baptism in the NT
- Thread starter HisRobes4Mine
- Start date
- Status
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
You answered your own question.
Tim, I think we need to flesh this out a bit.
Hi Chris, this is a great conversation.
Again, I will go back to the OT. When Abraham had all his males circumcised, it is highly probable that some of his servants (he had many, many servants) were given the sign even though they might not have been savingly united to Christ by faith. The criteria was not that one had to have a deep, intellectual, personal, faith that they could articulate. The criteria was the same for servants, their children, and biological children of Abraham - the criteria is not personal belief, but that they had to a) belong to a believing household and b) be willing to be subject to the rite (obviously the children had no choice).
I suppose that anyone in Abraham's household could have refused the sign and ran away. Certainly if a servant refused the sign, that was a indication of complete unbelief and unwillingness to subject oneself in any way, shape, or form to the one true God, who was the God of that household.
I am not arguing that if one was circumcised as an adult that it necessarily indicates that an adult was savingly united to Christ - but certainly it did indicate that they were willing to be subject to the headship of the head of the household, who was a believer. Certainly it indicated that they were willing to be associated with the people of God. In that sense, they are "confessing their faith" in a small way. Again, I am not arguing that they are necessarily saved, or elect, but that by accepting the sign, indicating that they are willing to become a "disciple" or a "learner", sitting under the authority of believers.
In that sense, they were "holy", different from the rest of the pagans, who would have nothing to do with God.
Izaak
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Sounds good, though likely it won't be till tonight when I have a little time.
Thank you all for such an irenic conversation!
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
Well, maybe so. But in those days what are we expecting a wife in that culture to do?
(sorry, can't quote at work - weird)
(sorry, can't quote at work - weird)
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
We don't require "regeneration" for baptism, we require a "profession of faith".
Isn't "Yes, I am willing to be baptized and be discipled as a Christian" a profession of faith?
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
To the point of an unbelieving spouse, they may passively agree to be baptized without their saying they are a Christian. It isn’t their desire because they think of it as fanciful traditions based on superstition, but they love their husband or wife and wish to show them that love without consideration of what it means. That isn’t the same as an active profession. One agrees to do so to be in unity and the other agrees with personal interest in the implication of the act itself. That’s what I was originally getting at. I should have been clear from the get.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
And you maintain that it would be good to baptize such a person and admit them into membership of the church?
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Hey Sean!
I agree with you - it is a profession of faith! Good point!
We must all agree that regeneration is not discernable (as to the exact time, of course). I realize baptists do not baptize based on regeneration, but on a credible profession. This makes sense.
I guess the whole question is this: what has to be the content of one's profession before a baptist would administer the rite? Certainly, many baptists would require a fairly robust profession of faith before administering baptism, indicating one's personal trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation. I would certainly believe that such a profession as that is required for admittance to the Lord's table, but not for baptism.
This is because of what I wrote earlier - we believe that baptism and the Lord's supper are different - while they are both sacraments instituted by Christ, that baptism is an initiatory rite - it is a rite to mark the start of the discipleship process - while the Lord's supper is a rite that marks personal embracing of the saviour who is set before us during the discipleship process.
Let's think about Jesus' disciples in John 6. Some of course left him after they could not stand his hard sayings. They afterwards "no longer walked with him". This is of course not talking about physically walking exclusively - but that they were no longer willing to sit under Jesus' teaching! They were indeed disciples - real disciples! But tragically they abandoned the saviour, and thus stopped being his disciples.
So when Jesus commands his apostles to make disciples and then baptize them, I really don't think that we can say that the saviour had in mind "only those who can make a robust profession of faith", but rather, those who will be willing to sit under my teaching.
For the child of a believer - that child has no choice in the matter - they ARE under the discipleship of Christ, whether they like it or not! For an adult though, they can walk away - they can abandon the saviour - and reject his Lordship over their life. Does this mean they have then just lost their salvation? No - rather it indicates (for the time being at least - they might come back) that "they were never of us" - that they were a tare - they indeed were disciples for a time, visible saints, but they did not have the most important thing - that is, faith in the saviour presented to them. I think we all can agree that that is the most important thing!
Election, and regeneration are in the background - they are invisible realities, not discernible by the naked eye - but what is discernable is that we can see when someone is sitting under the Lord's teaching and is a "disciple". That is why Christ gives us a visible sign. A visible sign (baptism) is given to visibly mark out those who are disciples, who sit under the teaching of Christ. Another visible sign is given (Lord's Table) to visibly mark out those who profess to embrace the saviour presented to them in the discipleship process. An invisible sign (the internal sealing of the holy Spirit) is given to each believer when they are savingly united to Christ - which makes sense, because you cannot see it with the naked eye.
A child born to Christian parents is a disciple from the moment of conception, and continues to be a disciple until they die, or leave the congregation due to unbelief, or are excommunicated due to sin in doctrine or in life.
God bless,
Izaak
Last edited:
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would maintain that if a person has publicly declared a desire to be baptized, but their motive, not made known, is that of former person in my example, they would be baptized. They would be because we can discern with real clarity what someone makes public. Obviously, there are cases where it’s easy to discern a person’s motive and we can act accordingly.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Our Confession provides a most helpful answer to that question. In paragraph 2 of Chapter 26, Of the Church, it states:
"All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted."
So in answer to your question, the criteria are positive and negative. Positively, they must profess repentance from sin, faith in and obedience to Christ. Negatively, there must be nothing in their doctrinal views are manner of life that "destroys" their profession (i.e. heretical views, or patterns of immorality).
Obviously, pastoral wisdom is required in making these evaluations. And the elders in different congregations may be more or less strict in their application. But that is the Confession's answer.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
@HisRobes4Mine
I second this recommendation. Well thought out and laid out information. I have used this resource with my wife and mother who both found it helpful when I first told them I was convinced of infant baptism. Both of whom originally thought I was nuts and now at least my wife has embraced the position and my mother I think is close. Whoever wrote it has done a solid service to many saints
Last edited:
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Izaak's comment below is helpful:
I have appreciated the answers given by you and Sean, as it helps us Presbyterians represent and understand your position correctly, even if we disagree.
Consider your statement:
"If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized?"
You make an assumption here that does not accurately represent our position. We never said an unbeliever is actually holy or even to be regarded as such. We extend a judgment of charity to a) our children who do not have a profession as we would show a b) judgment of charity to older members of the household that are willing to be associated with the believer without opposition while being instructed in the faith. If it is a profession we are talking about, to be an unbeliever is to profess in words/actions that which deny Christ.
We do not believe that professing unbelievers are to be regarded the same as infants/small children in a believing household. You are mistaken if you think an unbelieving adult and a child are to be regarded as the same in our view, since that would necessitate we regard the child as an unbeliever. We do not. Do you?
Last edited:
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
We adopted a twelve-year-old last year. We baptized her shortly after the adoption. Although she would not qualify for communion at this point, she is in our household and we instruct her in the Lord. Do we instruct those outside the faith to live godly lives? No, we call them to repent! This is not the relationship I have with my children. I've heard it expressed that the danger of presbyterianism on this point is that we treat or children as believers, thereby hurting them or giving them false assurance if they are actually not. But isn't the Christian life a calling to perpetual faith and repentance? Since faith and repentance are not just necessary for conversion, this is something before my children daily, as well as my wife and myself!
Finally last May my sister-in-law suddenly and very unexpectedly passed away with fullterm twins. I can say that our church lost three believers that day because of the outworking of God's covenant. Would you, my Baptist brethren, regard only one of them as a believer and the other two unbelievers?
Finally last May my sister-in-law suddenly and very unexpectedly passed away with fullterm twins. I can say that our church lost three believers that day because of the outworking of God's covenant. Would you, my Baptist brethren, regard only one of them as a believer and the other two unbelievers?
Last edited:
We both would seem to be saying that God does His spiritual work to save us first, and then the water baptism is being administered to us.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, agree on this point. The difference would be in administering to the household of believers.
Thanks for clarifying!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not in agreement that the "norm" in the NT was adult baptism. Two points.
1. Imagine yourself a Jewish convert who has, for thousands of years, as a church, and as an ethnicity, been giving your suckling infant males a sign of inclusion in the group, and now your new pastor tells you the sign is no longer valid. Now your male heirs will have no sign, nothing to remind them who they belong to. Nothing to remind them that they will be cut off, it they apostatize, and nothing to remind them that God said he would rather cut himself in half, and spill his own blood than to fail his promise to them. I personally would be outraged, and I would ask the Pastor to prove it. He having nothing, to show me would, would probably on the pulpit supply list the next week, if not out of a job, and slopping hogs for the gentiles.
2. Unless all the gentile converts were on the Chinese plan of one child per household, or were on the American plan of planned parenthood, a little elementary math would tell you that the norm was covenant, federal baptism.
Nothing you just said invalidates the original claim. Have you had a chance to read Bannerman specifically? He interacts with this point clearly.
Every time it seems water baptism was spoken of in the NT, was connected to faith in Christ and having the Holy Spirit already in mind.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's not what Tim said and that's generally not what's happening in circumcision. The infant is circumcised before his mighty profession of faith.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Henry Scudder on the benefit of observing the administration of baptism, which may be of interest to those studying this subject.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
There is a connection. Faith is a benefit that baptism signifies and seals.
I’ll state this:
Infants who are baptized have an interest in the church of Christ and a right to property. However, they do not have the benefits which baptism signifies and seals until they come to faith. The believer not only has a right to property but a right to possession. Baptism not only confers but confirms for the believer.
The person being administered the Baptism already has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.
- Status