infant baptism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle93

thistle93

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi! From what I understand Presbyterians traditionally say that infant baptism does not regenerate but does bring the infant into union with Christ and His death. I am just wondering how can one be united with Christ and His death without being regenerated? Or is infant baptism just the symbol of this? I am okay with this. But when people use the word seal, it seems they are presuming salvation upon the infant. I also do not understand how those who believe baptism does not regenerate but yet say we should not treat the infant as unconverted? Would Presbyterian say that one baptized as an infant who turns out later not to be converted, was converted but apostatized or that that individual was never truly saved? Thank you!


For His Glory-
Matthew
 
Presbyterians do not in general believe that an infant is united to Christ upon baptism. That would be to confuse the sign with the thing signified. For a very typical view of what baptism does, see Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 27-28. Look especially at the sections on sacramental language, as well as the distinction between sign and thing signified. The word "seal" refers, by way of analogy, to the wax seal on an important document. The seal itself is not the document. It proves that the document is genuine. So, in the case of baptism, it proves that the promise of God is genuine. The question of how Presbyterians treat their children is definitely a disputed one. The Southern Presbyterians tend to believe that a child is a pagan until it proves otherwise. The Northern Presbyterians tend to believe that children can grow organically into their faith. Most Presbyterians would say that someone baptized as an infant who later apostatized was never saved. These are only very general answers with no fleshing out, but it will give you a place to start.
 
I heartily agree with greenbaggins and Joshua. Children who are baptized are brought into the New covenant community, just as Abraham's children were brought into the Abrahamic covenant, albeit not all are necessarily brought into relationship with Christ through faith. For example, Samuel was circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant, but it says in 1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him. Of course, Samuel was later converted, but not at the time when the covenant sign was applied. Hope this helps...
 
saintandsinner77 said:
For example, Samuel was circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant, but it says in 1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him. Of course, Samuel was later converted, but not at the time when the covenant sign was applied.
Click to expand...

A very interesting observation, one that should probably be coupled with 1 Samuel 2:12 -- "Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD." Obviously Hophni and Phineas had received the covenant sign but they were apostates who were never saved.
 
Thistle,
For a confessional Presbyterian, baptismal rites no more brings a person into existential union with Christ, than participation in the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever actually puts him in contact with the grace of God. This is truth, whether a person is an infant or an adult.

As a Baptist, you are certainly familiar with the difference between ritual and reality. You do not believe that water-baptism effects the reality it is supposed to emblemize. Sometimes, it is assumed of Presbyterians, by Baptists, that because in Baptist theology the sign is associated with a presumed present-reality, that Presbyterians likewise presume the preexistent reality. And many Baptists also know that in certain branches of the church, the belief is held that in conjunction with the sacramental symbol in some way the symbolized reality is brought about at the time of administration. This is not the case for Reformed and Presbyterian confessionalists.

However, baptismal union IS found among the FederalVisionists, men like DougWilson, many of whom believe that they are the heirs of the Reformed tradition, even as on this point they reject the Confessions that embody the tradition. They confound the sign and the thing signified, precisely where they ought to explicate the difference. As their self-chosen designation implies, they believe that always our apprehension of/faith in, and consequent discussion of, spiritual realities should subsist entirely in "covenant-terms," the covenant being indistinguishable from the reality on this side of the eschaton.

Thus, these men DO speak of the covenant-member as truly "elect," "saved," "united to Christ," etc. by virtue of his membership. This leads to premium placed on "covenantal-acts," whether in worship or in life/law. "How do you know if you're saved? Well: do you go to church? been baptized? eat/drink communion? obey the commandments?" Your commitment or faithfulness to these areas of life and religion are the locus of comfort. Baptism, marking the key place of one's entrance into covenant, is thought to mark an existential union with Christ--the same union for a person who one day finds himself in heaven, as for the person who finds himself in hell. This is simply WRONG.

There's a sense in which the FV view is the mirror image of many a Baptist-view. Please don't take offense at this; it's not meant to be offensive; certain Baptist convictions exist to obviate certain errors that otherwise manifest themselves in the FV. So, when I say that they "flip-things-around" from the way you see them, it is because of this inverse-relation you share with them on particular points. There is a rational, logical reason why many FV teachers and supporters are former Baptists. I'm not saying that there is no one from a Reformed background who has become a FV proponent, only that a different path is responsible for bringing them there.

When many of these persons "flipped" from their previously held baptistic principles which "delay" covenant-identification (ala baptism and L.S.), they simply transferred their old way of understanding "covenant" and "sacrament" into the other paradigm that makes "no-delay" in covenant-identification, but without changing their mindset or hermeneutics that address the relationships between these things. They simply assumed that the main differences between themselves, and their Reformed/Presbyterian brethren, were matters of "blind-spots," instead of being more basic.


Baptism (period, whether for adults or infants) is a sign (a pointer to, a symbol of) spiritual realities. It is a sign of objective reality, as opposed to subjective reality. "Objective reality" refers to the things that God does--primarily outside of us--and what God says to us. "Subjective reality" would be the objective reality when (if!) that fact is received by faith alone. Reformed/Presbyterian testimony respecting baptism is that it is above all an "unconditional" sign of the objective, rather than the subjective. Because what I say about divine things, or about what those divine things mean to me, is open to interpretation and change. Mine is not an infallible word.

Subjectively, the divine word in baptism is "conditional." Because, it always predicates what it says about ME (personally) on my believing, on saving faith. His word precedes mine everywhere, in every case; therefore, there is no inherent difficulty (from our standpoint) in the application of the sign of the faithful to the children of the faithful in (hopeful) expectation of their faith.

What you say about the "seal" demonstrates another difference in the understanding on each side. The seal is yet another divine speech-act that has both objective and subjective elements. Pastor Lane already mentioned the seal under the aspect of validating the genuine article. It is an oath-indication. The idea behind it is that this sign has more going for it than mere accuracy. It has the unmistakable oath of God upon it. The sign points to Jesus Christ. The oath bears witness that God has set his ultimate approval on Christ.

There is another aspect to the seal, and that is the indication of "property." This is where the idea of "sealing" comes into contact with the subjective aspect of baptism. In baptism, the subject is marked with the seal of God's ownership. Of course, there must be (in the nature of the case) two aspects in view here. There is an inward and an outward seal, or declaration of God's ownership. Outwardly, the church in God's name, marks a person as his property through baptism, putting the Name of God (F/S/HS) on the subject. Inwardly, we know nothing of what God does for one person or another, depending on whether he or she is elect or not. 2Tim.2:19, "Nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are his'" (n.b. the previous context to those words). He knows us because he claimed us, and that before time.

What we declare, as the church, is that God (in his own ineffable way) puts a connection between our human acts, and his divine purposes. For the reprobate, participation in the church-acts of Word and Sacrament is superficial, and damnable. On the other hand, for the elect, such participation is a blessing, a means of grace. The manner and timing of the dispensing of that blessing is God's own prerogative. We do not delve into the secret things. We just do as we have been instructed, and leave the results to God.
 
Hi! I have been greatly blessed by the WCF but on this issue of baptism it seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.

I greatly appreciate that it makes the following clear:
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

But before this it states:
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, of 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 Church until the end of the world.

I guess for me the big hang up is that word seal. Can one have the seal of regeneration upon them and not be regenerated at some point in their life as is the case for some who are baptized? Seal takes on the connotation that something has been accomplished and it cannot be broken. How can one be sealed to these things and for some them not become a final reality? It would almost seem that God has failed in not keeping that person. I guess my views on the preservation of the saints is coming out. Seems one could just use word sign instead of seal and it would be a lot easier to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. I do not mean to be offensive or argumentative but is a genuine concern. Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

Seems there were a lot in Israel who took for granite their state with God because they had been circumcised and were therefore part of the covenant. If fact this seems to be the main stumbling block of the Jews today. They would say, we are God's chosen people how dare you tell us we have to put our faith in Jesus Christ. Do you think that there is a danger for those baptized as infants to rely on their baptism as their guarantee they are okay with God? I know this is not what Presbyterians believe but in your experience have you found this to be a problem? Would you say the main fault of this is not so much with infant baptism but more based upon the church leadership and parents not making the matter clear to the one baptized as an infant. Believe me I know that baptist are not perfect on the issue either. There are dangers of decisionalism and false professions. Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew
 
Matthew,

Seal is like the old wax seals you put on an envelope. It is the PROMISE that what is inside the envelope is actually from that person who sealed it (usually the seal at an emblem, mine would be a big B for Barnes, or some would have a crest).

So as we talk about the sacraments, a seal is the promise that God will bring about those promises SIGNified in the sacrament to those who receive them by faith.

The WSC states, "Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers."
 
Matthew, I will leave the answers to your questions to the more equipped than I, but may I commend you on your peaceable spirit in light of this debate. It is quite refreshing if I may say so as the topic of baptism has lit many a fire on this board. :up:
 
The key, Matthew, for Baptists to understand the paedo position is to recognize that we regard baptism as primarily an ecclesiological thing, not a soteriological thing. Yes, it is a sign and seal of salvific benefits, but the benefits can come before, during, or after the sign. The benefits to which the sign and seal point only come by Spirit-induced faith in the believer. The sign and seal of baptism marks a person as a member of the visible church. That's all that the rite does. Only when the Spirit produces faith in the believer does the believer actually get the benefits to which the rite of baptism points.
 
thistle93 said:
Hi! I have been greatly blessed by the WCF but on this issue of baptism it seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Click to expand...
As pastor Lane explained (and I alluded to) the probelm has partly to do with reading the WCF as if it was speaking like a Baptist instead of a Presbyterian. You read its terms as though they should make sense to you, without "changing hats." There's more to our differences than a "blind spot."

As far as the Presbyterian goes, the most significant statement made at any baptism is not subjective, but objective. This goes the opposite way in the Baptist view, proved by the question of whether a baptism "happened" or not, depending on the true heart-state of the recipient. A Presbyterian would never consider repeating the rite, on account the subjective condition of the heart wasn't correct the first time. Because the statement, "God saves believers, once and for all," is more important than whether the statement is "infallibly certain for this person," or even, "We're/I'm pretty sure about pre-existing salvation in this case."

thistle93 said:
I greatly appreciate that it makes the following clear:
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

But before this it states:
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, of 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 Church until the end of the world.

I guess for me the big hang up is that word seal. Can one have the seal of regeneration upon them and not be regenerated at some point in their life as is the case for some who are baptized? Seal takes on the connotation that something has been accomplished and it cannot be broken. How can one be sealed to these things and for some them not become a final reality? It would almost seem that God has failed in not keeping that person. I guess my views on the preservation of the saints is coming out. Seems one could just use word sign instead of seal and it would be a lot easier to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. I do not mean to be offensive or argumentative but is a genuine concern. Thank you!
Click to expand...
You didn't underline "...unto him a sign" in the quote. That is a sign unto faith, and nothing else, and nothing less. A person who says he believes or hopes in the sign given to him, but never takes the road to that destination, has an meaningless profession.

As for the "seal," do you believe any baptism performed by man is in any sense a seal? You've never baptized (nor will you) anyone you were infallibly sure had a personal guarantee of eternal salvation. Apart from a faith that lasts through death, we barely know our own hearts. But maybe you repudiate the whole idea that baptism as men perform it has some kind of sealing witness. I know some Baptists who say that the only New Covenant seal is the Holy Spirit, an invisible seal that has no testimony in the baptismal rite itself. When we point to Abraham's receiving circumcision as a sign and seal (Rom.4:11), the reply comes back, they were only so to him personally. No one else could claim them as testament to the righteousness he/she had by faith also. This interpretation is convenient, because it eliminates having to understand the sign and seal in anything other than an absolute sense (God uniquely answers Abraham's faith with his co-signature). But it makes the other receivers of Abraham's symbol poorer.

It is true that God's unilateral promise to his elect will not be broken. Because, he takes upon himself the whole obligation of fulfilling the covenant obligations. So, those who receive the Holy Spirit are sealed by him until the day of redemption, an irreversible accomplishment awaiting full realization. Does water-baptism represent the giving of Holy Spirit? Then why shouldn't also carry the symbolical witness of God's seal? We point to the analogical relation of baptism in our age to circumcision in Abraham's age, and (since we believe the latter was a sign and seal to everyone who believed), we say that baptism also functions in the same way.

But in the fallible world, the unfailing presence of faith (that is created by God in his elect) is spelled out as a condition in the proclamations we make. God's promise is still a unilateral commitment to save, his word as good as his power to perform, and his willingness--but always unto faith alone. So baptism not only points to the cross (his sign), but it also testifies that God's Word is on the line (his seal). "That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us" (Heb.6:18). The faithful receive the consolation; the unfaithful do not. The same observable sign and seal is presented to them all in this uncertain world; but some only dabble in externalities. "Let God be true, though every man a liar."

thistle93 said:
Seems there were a lot in Israel who took for granite their state with God because they had been circumcised and were therefore part of the covenant. If fact this seems to be the main stumbling block of the Jews today. They would say, we are God's chosen people how dare you tell us we have to put our faith in Jesus Christ. Do you think that there is a danger for those baptized as infants to rely on their baptism as their guarantee they are okay with God? I know this is not what Presbyterians believe but in your experience have you found this to be a problem? Would you say the main fault of this is not so much with infant baptism but more based upon the church leadership and parents not making the matter clear to the one baptized as an infant. Believe me I know that baptist are not perfect on the issue either. There are dangers of decisionalism and false professions. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Isn't it a stumbling-block for many Christians today, that they take their (adult!) baptism for a talisman? You seem to admit as much. I'd say the American (if not the world) religious scene proves that churches restricting baptism to adult-immersed-on-profession-only doesn't slow the rate of apostasy one bit.

So, does a danger exist that those infants covenantaly baptized will take their identification for granted?--of course, but no more than in some other setting those who have made a profession will take their own commitment for granted (the OSAS approach). The problem is in the failure to proclaim a gospel that doesn't quit.


I hope this is helpful.
 
From our baptism form:

The principal parts of the doctrine of holy baptism are these three:

First. That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, in so much that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again. This, the dipping in, or sprinkling with water teaches us, whereby the impurity of our souls is signified, and we admonished to loathe, and humble ourselves before God, and seek for our purification and salvation without ourselves.
Secondly. Holy baptism witnesseth and sealeth unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ. Therefore we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For when we are baptized in the name of the Father, God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us, that he doth make an eternal covenant of grace with us, and adopts us for his children and heirs, and therefore will provide us with every good thing, and avert all evil or turn it to our profit. And when we are baptized in the name of the Son, the Son sealeth unto us, that he doth wash us in his blood from all our sins, incorporating us into the fellowship of his death and resurrection, so that we are freed from all our sins, and accounted righteous before God. In like manner, when we are baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost assures us, by this holy sacrament, that he will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of Christ, applying unto us, that which we have in Christ, namely, the washing away of our sins, and the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot or wrinkle among the assembly of the elect in life eternal.
Thirdly. Whereas in all covenants, there are contained two parts: therefore are we by God through baptism, admonished of, and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that we trust in him, and love him with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a new and holy life. And if we sometimes through weakness fall into sin, we must not therefore despair of God's mercy, nor continue in sin, since baptism is a seal and undoubted testimony, that we have an eternal covenant of grace with God.

Administration of Baptism
 
Matthew,

Reformed make a distinction, with which both Baptists and Federal Visionists struggle--though for different reasons.

We distinguish two ways of being in the one covenant of grace. All baptized members have an externald relation to the covenant of grace and all those who believe also have an internal relation to the covenant of grace. All those who have that internal relation also have, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, the benefits signified in baptism. The sacrament, however, does not create that internal union. As has been well said already, no sacrament can create such a union.

The Holy Spirit creates union, in the sense in which we ordinarily use that word, working sovereignly, freely, ordinarily through the preaching of the gospel to bring dead sinners to life and to give them faith.

Here's an essay on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top