Paedo-Baptism Answers Is infant baptism always impossible to be a real mean of grace in the time its administrated?

[Angelo Neves]

administered*

Considering the Reformed Orthodox view that Baptism as a mean of grace, does communicates its grace to the elect, and this by elect faith.
How Infant Baptism could useful when its done without the needed faith?
Is Its grace logic and necessary pushed to future?
If so, infant baptism is impossible to be reasonable, so it's unreasonable?

Bullinger

An objection is made , -If Sacraments do nothing profit without our faith , then they depend on our worthiness or unworthiness ; so that they are not perfect .
Sermons on the Sacraments, Heinrich Bullinger

Gillespie

I had , in answer to Mr Prynne's third query , given this reason why profane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the sacrament , and yet not from hearing the word because the word is not only a con- firming and comforting , but a converting ordinance , and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darkness to light , and from the power of Satan to God ; whereas the sacrament is not a converting , but a confirming and sealing ordinance , which is not given to the church for the conversion of sinners , but for the communion of saints . It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace , but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the covenant of grace which he already hath . Mr Prynne doth with much eagerness contradict me in this , and argues at length the contrary ( which is the marrow and fatness , if there be any , in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference ) , whereby he doth not only contradict me but himself too , as shall appear , yea , and join not only with the more rigid Lutherans , but with the Papists them- selves , against the writers of the Reformed churches . For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me , is con- troverted between Papists and Protestants . The Papists hold that the sacraments are instrumental to confer , give , or work grace ; yea , ex opere operato , as the schoolmen speak . Our divines hold that the sacra- ments are appointed of God , and delivered to the church as sealing ordinances , not to give , but to testify what is given , —not to make , but confirm saints .
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of Church-government vindicated, George Gillespie

Ames

Reas 1. Because the Saraments are appendices of the Word, so that they are often understood under it, in Scriptures; to wit, when the Gospell and word of the Kingdome are onely mentioned; because they are appendants and connexed to it: And hence it is also, that if the Sacraments be separated from the Word, they are of no value. Where therefore the Word is not received, the Sacraments cannot be received.
Reas. 2. Because the Sacraments are both priviledges, and markes or badges of the Church; and therefore they belong not but to such as are members of the Church.
Reas. 3 Because a Sacrament cannot be a sealing signe, but unto such as have some grant to be sealed. But who so are no wayes partakers of Christ, they have no grant, or promise made to them, that can, or ought to be sealed unto them.
Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism, William Ames

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Baptism (a means of grace) is made effectual when faith lays hold of it. In the Reformed Orthodox view, it is not required that at the moment of an infant's baptism he has prior and fully formed faith, the whereby to immediately apprehend the effect of the means (which is exclusive to the elect). It is enough to obey the Scriptures and apply the sign/seal of the covenant to the appropriate person at the appropriate time.

If faith is present already, for example in the case of a genuine believing adult, the effect is immediate for him (though it also may be improved over time). For a covenant child, his faith should sprout in due time, come to life and lay hold of that which was invested on him when his believing parents bore witness of their faith and submitted him to the sacrament of baptism in hopes of his own faith. We benefit from our baptism irrespective of our age, or the age we were when the sign was given, or how long ago it was given, whether given as a child or an adult, on account of believing and appreciating what baptism means.

This understanding of baptism also explains why we don't think a fresh attempt at baptism is appropriate for an adult who may have intelligibly submitted himself for baptism when secretly or ignorantly remaining an unbeliever--meaning he also did not experience the effect by faith at the time of his baptism--but when he does actually believe (contrary to his previous false profession) he may rest in the baptism he received before he believed. Why? Because God's witness is prior to the believer's in all cases!

I don't fully understand all your questions, so perhaps you can take my response; and applying it to your curiosity then rephrase your questions.

 

[greenbaggins]

I would only add that your questions seem to assume that infants cannot have any form of faith. This would be contradicted by Psalm 22:9 and Luke 1:41. Faith can develop, and infants can have a "seed-form" version of it.

 

[Angelo Neves]

I would only add that your questions seem to assume that infants cannot have any form of faith. This would be contradicted by Psalm 22:9 and Luke 1:41. Faith can develop, and infants can have a "seed-form" version of it.

Yes, I'm assuming that. But I think it's a position from paedos too.
I think only Turretin (and other that I forgot) argues for a seed-form faith. I did not read about any other.
How infants can have faith without God's Word?
I think it's not contradicted by these two passages

 

[Angelo Neves]

I would only add that your questions seem to assume that infants cannot have any form of faith. This would be contradicted by Psalm 22:9 and Luke 1:41. Faith can develop, and infants can have a "seed-form" version of it.

I think it's not contradicted by these two passages

Psalm 22:9-10 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

I think there are some points about this psalm

1. It's a messianic psalm
2. The context appears to be about general protection or special protection (from election or for any otger point) in a God's pespective
3. Hope could be rendered as Secure
4. As "cast upon thee" could be read as "separate to a specific end"
5. Even it would be in a man's perspective, it does not lead to salvific faith
6. Even if salvific faith (I don't think it), it does not make a general pattern, but it would be only about David (passing trough the messianic point)

So I think:
It does not have you specific application to David
It's in a sense of protection from God. But ever in a faith way, it can not be soteriological
The Context appear to lead from this position

And I think it's interesting to see Brenton's Septuagint Translation

Psalm 22:9 Brenton For thou art he that drew me out of the womb; my hope from my mother's breasts.

 

[Angelo Neves]

About John, the Baptist case

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

I think there are some points about it too
It was a prediction from a specific anoiting of the Holy Ghost from John:

Luke 1:13-15 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

These requirements said are appear to be the same from the Nazirites :

Numbers 6:2-4 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

And It's form and way is very close or equal to the Samson case:

Judge 13:3-5 The angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, “You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean. You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”

So joyning these verses with the point that John the Baptist was the prophet in the Elisha's spirit

Malachi 4:5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

And Our Lord Jesus confirmed it

Matthew 17:10-13 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

The Holy Ghost as power (what is common in a prophetic way) was out from Israel in the interbiblical time

John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

It was not about normal acts of Holy Spirit to save, not soteriological one, but the Holy Spirit as Power, as the charismatic one, as the Apostle have, receive the promise, and after, receive the thing

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

So It leads to:

1. Elias case was a very specifical case
2. It was said by divine revelation, by prophecy and by the angel
3. And it could be only a santification way in a nazirite way, as Samson case
4. It's better comprehend when the Holy Ghost as Power is remembered
5. It links with the general state of Israel without the Holy Spirit as Power
6. The specific end of Elias minister that was linked to the destruction of the unbelievers jews
7. And that Elias was filled with Holy Spirit with in contact with Jesus

By these issues pointed, I think it's not a replicable pattern, it's not common
That the Elias was filled in contact with the Word
And that he was not filled in a soteriological way, but in a santification and an empowerment way*

 

[Angelo Neves]

Baptism (a means of grace) is made effectual when faith lays hold of it. In the Reformed Orthodox view, it is not required that at the moment of an infant's baptism he has prior and fully formed faith, the whereby to immediately apprehend the effect of the means (which is exclusive to the elect). It is enough to obey the Scriptures and apply the sign/seal of the covenant to the appropriate person at the appropriate time.

If faith is present already, for example in the case of a genuine believing adult, the effect is immediate for him (though it also may be improved over time). For a covenant child, his faith should sprout in due time, come to life and lay hold of that which was invested on him when his believing parents bore witness of their faith and submitted him to the sacrament of baptism in hopes of his own faith. We benefit from our baptism irrespective of our age, or the age we were when the sign was given, or how long ago it was given, whether given as a child or an adult, on account of believing and appreciating what baptism means.

This understanding of baptism also explains why we don't think a fresh attempt at baptism is appropriate for an adult who may have intelligibly submitted himself for baptism when secretly or ignorantly remaining an unbeliever--meaning he also did not experience the effect by faith at the time of his baptism--but when he does actually believe (contrary to his previous false profession) he may rest in the baptism he received before he believed. Why? Because God's witness is prior to the believer's in all cases!

I don't fully understand all your questions, so perhaps you can take my response; and applying it to your curiosity then rephrase your questions.

Thanks for you answers.

But so, in the terms of my previous question:
Is the Infant baptism always impossible to comunicate an immediate effect as the adult case?

 

[greenbaggins]

Angelo, the paedo-baptism answers forum is not really the right place for debate on baptism issues. You asked a question. My response was that very few, if any, paedos would agree with the assumptions of your questions. You asked the questions in a slanted way, in other words. It seems to me that you are not asking, therefore, in order to get answers, but to spark debate. There are many, many threads already on the PB that would have answers to your challenges.

 

[Angelo Neves]

Angelo, the paedo-baptism answers forum is not really the right place for debate on baptism issues. You asked a question. My response was that very few, if any, paedos would agree with the assumptions of your questions. You asked the questions in a slanted way, in other words. It seems to me that you are not asking, therefore, in order to get answers, but to spark debate. There are many, many threads already on the PB that would have answers to your challenges.

Sorry, I did not know that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks for you answers.

But so, in the terms of my previous question:
Is the Infant baptism always impossible to comunicate an immediate effect as the adult case?

The facts present us with an "obscurity." Since we humans cannot receive verbal, intelligible communication from the infant, whatever might be immediately effected must be left in the realm of possibility only. That something might be effected is allowed, but theoretically; for God is not limited from effectual communication.

We confess "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," (WCF 28.6) all which could take place in the baptismal event; even while the efficacy of baptism (fulfilled toward true faith exclusively*) "is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."

* WSC Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

So, what if God chooses to impart and actually germinate a still greatly immature "seed" of faith when he waters that (elect) person with baptismal water? Is he free to do so? Is there any theological reason to doubt he may do so? Do we know he surely did so in temporal conjunction with the baptism event? Again, we confess such blessing is fully sent "according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time," whenever that may be.

If an infant child is capable of actually receiving the wordless love communicated to him by his mother--by her touch, her sounds (still lacking intelligible reception), her nursing milk, and any other transmission fit to be received--then God is most capable of communicating non-verbally but really, and using the means of gentle caress by the water he appointed and the murmured words of institution to the end of some immediate effect.

In other words, he can choose to ordain in the heart of an infant complete and genuine trust toward him, which is the capstone of true faith (defined as knowledge, assent, and trust), while allowing faith's precursor elements to develop as they should according to nature, which development will only build greater trust in the heart of the believer. But whatever may occur, it is not baptism that works, but the God the Holy Spirit (WCF 27.3).

In so saying, we have committed ourselves to nothing indubitable with respect to any particular infant person in the day of his baptism, while affirming what God may (and some think he regularly does) in an appropriately conducted baptism of covenant children. We say nothing, as even our Lutheran Protestant brethren do assert, to pronounce by the authorized and faithful deed a "baptismal regeneration" has occurred. We don't confess a doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

But the Holy Spirit can communicate to an infant person, through his appointed means, if he wills; and that sufficient to create true faith and by it the beginnings of awareness of himself that is saving in the end. Since, as Scripture teaches: "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

 

[Angelo Neves]

Thanks again

The facts present us with an "obscurity." Since we humans cannot receive verbal, intelligible communication from the infant, whatever might be immediately effected must be left in the realm of possibility only. That something might be effected is allowed, but theoretically; for God is not limited from effectual communication.

We confess "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," (WCF 28.6) all which could take place in the baptismal event; even while the efficacy of baptism (fulfilled toward true faith exclusively*) "is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."

* WSC Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

So, what if God chooses to impart and actually germinate a still greatly immature "seed" of faith when he waters that (elect) person with baptismal water? Is he free to do so? Is there any theological reason to doubt he may do so? Do we know he surely did so in temporal conjunction with the baptism event? Again, we confess such blessing is fully sent "according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time," whenever that may be.

If an infant child is capable of actually receiving the wordless love communicated to him by his mother--by her touch, her sounds (still lacking intelligible reception), her nursing milk, and any other transmission fit to be received--then God is most capable of communicating non-verbally but really, and using the means of gentle caress by the water he appointed and the murmured words of institution to the end of some immediate effect.

In other words, he can choose to ordain in the heart of an infant complete and genuine trust toward him, which is the capstone of true faith (defined as knowledge, assent, and trust), while allowing faith's precursor elements to develop as they should according to nature, which development will only build greater trust in the heart of the believer. But whatever may occur, it is not baptism that works, but the God the Holy Spirit (WCF 27.3).

In so saying, we have committed ourselves to nothing indubitable with respect to any particular infant person in the day of his baptism, while affirming what God may (and some think he regularly does) in an appropriately conducted baptism of covenant children. We say nothing, as even our Lutheran Protestant brethren do assert, to pronounce by the authorized and faithful deed a "baptismal regeneration" has occurred. We don't confess a doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

But the Holy Spirit can communicate to an infant person, through his appointed means, if he wills; and that sufficient to create true faith and by it the beginnings of awareness of himself that is saving in the end. Since, as Scripture teaches: "Without faith it is impossible to please God."