Scott Clark and Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
StephenMartyr

StephenMartyr

Puritan Board Freshman
I read some, probably not all, of his Part 1 and Part 2 of a series called: "Some Practical Consequences Of Reformed Covenant Theology". I just read his 3rd installment and it was about infant baptism. This place seems to be swamped with questions about IB as of late but I hope everyone here can put up with one more question. As for myself, I'm leaning more towards it.

I would appreciate if you have a few minutes to read this link first: https://www.agradio.org/some-practical-consequences-of-reformed-covenant-theology-3.html

My question is this:

Notice that Baptist guy said, "It seems that people were surprised to learn, in an article I wrote last week, that I presume my children to be unsaved. The article, What’s Dead Looks Dead, expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead."

I'm not wanting to get into the whole "New Calvinism" thing as that perhaps is a whole other can of worms!

But reading what he said, and looking at my upbringing, that's the view I've held! That one always considers all children unsaved, until proven regenerate. We can easily say things like, "We / You were born in sin. We were born separated from God. There's nothing good in us because from our very birth into this world we have an inbred enmity against God. Through hearing God's Word and a working of the Holy Spirit one then becomes born again."

(Yes there is faith and repentance, but I wrote that quick to prove a point.)

So notice the whole "born in sin" and "born separated from God". Is this my Baptist background talking or is that Biblical through and through. I consider verses like:

Eph 2:4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )…" (spaced because triggers winky face)

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:..."

Emphasis mine.

So I've taken the position / stance of people, all people are born sinners. Now can God work in an infant? Sure He can! God worked in John the Baptist's life while he was still in the womb! But isn't that an exception to the rule?

If not all people born are not sinners, how does one interpret Romans 3:9-20?

I really enjoyed that article! And I don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration just so you know.
 
We don't baptize anyone but sinners. Everyone is a sinner, gone astray from the womb, an enemy by birth (according to nature, but not for the covenant).

Your question seems to presume that the Reformed/Presbyterian baptizes the "saved" or those we think are saved. That is not the basis for a Reformed/Presbyterian baptism. In the case of an adult, the profession of personal faith by the baptized is one necessary condition for the application of baptism. In the case of an infant (or minor child) the profession of faith of the parent bringing the child is the comparable necessary condition. It still isn't the basis, but these are required conditions.

Baptism does not regenerate, it does not expunge sin or guilt. It signifies, it points to the cleansing Jesus does for sinners--like this adult or this baby--who believes in what baptism signifies. Baptism, in the Reformed/Presbyterian view is primarily something that God says about what he does; it is not the statement by the baptized or referring to the baptized person concerning what he is doing or ought to do.

God works by means, especially his Word and sacraments, to grow Christians. The former creates faith, the latter strengthens it. In a good Reformed/Presbyterian church, we presume neither the spiritual deadness of our children, nor their spiritual life--if to "presume" is defined as ungrounded ideas used as the basis for regard or treatment. The Reformed/Presbyterian expects that the means of grace will have the effect that God sovereignly appointed for them: convincing, converting, transforming and strengthening sinners, who are also saints.

God instructs his people to believe his Word, to believe what he has said will come to pass. No one should believe that children will develop and exhibit faith that is not taught them, but should believe that children as well as (and often better than) adults will absorb the dutifully employed means, and show the fruits of faith that begins in planting that took place (for some) in infancy.

The life of faith is one of perseverance. It is not a "moment" of salvation, but a "way" of salvation. The Reformed/Presbyterian parent or pastor isn't studying the youth to discover the moment when they clearly affirm the faith being taught them, or are ready to "make a decision." But all the people, old and young, Christian a short or long time, are commanded every week to believe the gospel and live for Jesus.

When is the hour I first believed? I really don't know, but God made a claim on me when I was very young; and as I grew in age and faith, I embraced the implications of that claim. I am not saved because I first believed, but because I still believe. I believe that to which baptism bears witness: Jesus died so sinners like me might be cleansed.
 
From what I can tell of the Scottish tradition, and my own church's practice, we would hope that our children born into the church and baptised would become disciples indeed of Christ. However we do not assume they are saved or indeed will be saved "at some point". We look for all to make an accredited profession of faith before being admitted to the Lord's table. Until such a profession is made, the default is to view any adherent- adult or child- as unsaved.

Clark quotes the Synod Utrecht: "that according to the Confession of our churches the seed o the covenant, by virtue of the promise of God, must be held to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until upon growing up they should manifest the contrary in their way of life or doctrine." This is not the Scottish view. We would look for signs of conversion as an essential element to a credible profession.

There will always be those who are saved but have not made a profession of saving faith (often because they have never been give the assurance to make such a profession) and are often viewed by others as being saved. However we would normally judge a person by his profession (if accepted as credible) or lack thereof and therefore those who have not professed would be viewed, at least ecclesiastically, as unsaved.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
I prefer in thinking of them as covenant members.
Click to expand...

Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But in my opinion, focusing on their position in the Lord and not their covenantal status is antipaedobaptist. We should be telling our children that they are 'in-covenant' and to make their election 'sure'; as well as to improve upon their baptism as God has placed His mark upon them and their lives.
 
Scott Bushey said:
Agreed. But in my opinion, focusing on their position in the Lord and not their covenantal status is antipaedobaptist. We should be telling our children that they are 'in-covenant' and to make their election 'sure'; as well as to improve upon their baptism as God has placed His mark upon them and their lives.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose we would need to determine what is meant by "focusing on". It's certainly not the case that we go around saying to individuals "you're saved" or "you're not saved". The distinction is important if talking about presumptive regeneration, which we reject. But in the ordinary course of things we're not going around singling people out as one or the other. Our preaching would follow, loosely, the "categorical" approach of addressing the believer and the unbeliever distinctly. And during the administration of the Lord's Supper the distinction is made explicit by a) the division during the administration itself and b) the ministers who address both the professing and unprofessing in different ways. However it is made explicit in a corporate sense (those who go forward to the table, those who don't).

Our ministers would urge people to make their calling and election sure. One must make the former sure before he can make the latter sure. Our preaching would acknowledge that all who are baptised adherents are members of the covenant community but it would also emphasise that that membership cannot be rested in as proof of one's election.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify: when I say "saved" above I mean regenerate/believing. I wasn't thinking in terms of elect and reprobate, which is how Clark uses the term in his article. He's probably right and I was being too vague.
 
StephenMartyr said:
I read some, probably not all, of his Part 1 and Part 2 of a series called: "Some Practical Consequences Of Reformed Covenant Theology". I just read his 3rd installment and it was about infant baptism. This place seems to be swamped with questions about IB as of late but I hope everyone here can put up with one more question. As for myself, I'm leaning more towards it.

I would appreciate if you have a few minutes to read this link first: https://www.agradio.org/some-practical-consequences-of-reformed-covenant-theology-3.html

My question is this:

Notice that Baptist guy said, "It seems that people were surprised to learn, in an article I wrote last week, that I presume my children to be unsaved. The article, What’s Dead Looks Dead, expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead."

I'm not wanting to get into the whole "New Calvinism" thing as that perhaps is a whole other can of worms!

But reading what he said, and looking at my upbringing, that's the view I've held! That one always considers all children unsaved, until proven regenerate. We can easily say things like, "We / You were born in sin. We were born separated from God. There's nothing good in us because from our very birth into this world we have an inbred enmity against God. Through hearing God's Word and a working of the Holy Spirit one then becomes born again."

(Yes there is faith and repentance, but I wrote that quick to prove a point.)

So notice the whole "born in sin" and "born separated from God". Is this my Baptist background talking or is that Biblical through and through. I consider verses like:

Eph 2:4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )…" (spaced because triggers winky face)

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:..."

Emphasis mine.

So I've taken the position / stance of people, all people are born sinners. Now can God work in an infant? Sure He can! God worked in John the Baptist's life while he was still in the womb! But isn't that an exception to the rule?

If not all people born are not sinners, how does one interpret Romans 3:9-20?

I really enjoyed that article! And I don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration just so you know.
Click to expand...

All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.

If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"
 
alexandermsmith said:
Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.
Click to expand...
Disciples of Christ refer to those who have been
saved into His Kingdom though, correct?
 
De Jager said:
All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.

If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"
Click to expand...
None though belong to God unless their sins have been cleansed by rebirth in Christ, have to be saved!
 
Dachaser said:
None though belong to God unless their sins have been cleansed by rebirth in Christ, have to be saved!
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as you make it.

You are speaking of ultimate salvation. But the Bible pretty clearly teaches that the children of believers really and truly belong to God in a special way, different than all the pagan children of the world. That is why Paul calls them "holy" in 1 Cor. 7, and in Ezekiel 16 why God chastises the people for the horrible abomination of sacrificing "my children" to Molech.

When a believer has a child, that child belongs to God. God claims that child as "mine", and that child has special privileges (hearing the word of God) and obligations (trust and obedience).
 
Dachaser said:
Disciples of Christ refer to those who have been
saved into His Kingdom though, correct?
Click to expand...

No, that is not how the Bible defines disciple. A disciple means a "learner". We read of the disciples of John the baptist - that doesn't imply they were regenerate. We also learn in John 6 that some of Jesus' disciples left him (which is impossible if disciple means what you suggest that it means). A disciple is simply one that sits under the tutelage of a teacher. Therefore even Judas was a true disciple - but not a true believer. There is a difference.
 
De Jager said:
It's not as simple as you make it.

You are speaking of ultimate salvation. But the Bible pretty clearly teaches that the children of believers really and truly belong to God in a special way, different than all the pagan children of the world. That is why Paul calls them "holy" in 1 Cor. 7, and in Ezekiel 16 why God chastises the people for the horrible abomination of sacrificing "my children" to Molech.

When a believer has a child, that child belongs to God. God claims that child as "mine", and that child has special privileges (hearing the word of God) and obligations (trust and obedience).
Click to expand...
The children born to saved parents have the scriptures taught and lived to them, have church community, but God is not their Heavenly Father until and if reborn from above!
 
De Jager said:
No, that is not how the Bible defines disciple. A disciple means a "learner". We read of the disciples of John the baptist - that doesn't imply they were regenerate. We also learn in John 6 that some of Jesus' disciples left him (which is impossible if disciple means what you suggest that it means). A disciple is simply one that sits under the tutelage of a teacher. Therefore even Judas was a true disciple - but not a true believer. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Are not disciples of Jesus believer's who are now maturing in their walk with Him?
 
David,
Here is the distinction:


18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ge 17:18–22.

Both of the brothers were in covenant. One internally and the other externally. None the less, God acknowledges his covenant and promises. Princes came from the loins of Ishmael, via blessing. Granted, these are superficial in eternal senses, but again...
 
Dachaser said:
The children born to saved parents have the scriptures taught and lived to them, have church community, but God is not their Heavenly Father until and if reborn from above!
Click to expand...

I am not denying that all people everywhere must personally repent and believe the gospel.

Children born to Christian parents are holy and are called to respond in faith to the promises made at their baptism. We also affirm that this faith is a gift of God; nevertheless we call these children to faith in Christ, trusting that the Holy Spirit will save those whom God has elected unto all eternity.

There are many children who are born in the covenant that never have saving faith, just as Paul writes "not all Israel is Israel".
 
De Jager said:
I am not denying that all people everywhere must personally repent and believe the gospel.

Children born to Christian parents are holy and are called to respond in faith to the promises made at their baptism. We also affirm that this faith is a gift of God; nevertheless we call these children to faith in Christ, trusting that the Holy Spirit will save those whom God has elected unto all eternity.

There are many children who are born in the covenant that never have saving faith, just as Paul writes "not all Israel is Israel".
Click to expand...
Baptist parents raise our kids in the scriptures and partake of church activities, do where is that real difference regardless views on water Baptism?
 
Scott Bushey said:
David,
Here is the distinction:


18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ge 17:18–22.

Both of the brothers were in covenant. One internally and the other externally. None the less, God acknowledges his covenant and promises. Princes came from the loins of Ishmael, via blessing. Granted, these are superficial in eternal senses, but again...
Click to expand...
We see children as able to participate in the church, as in its outward administration, but reserve baptism to those part of the spiritual aspect of the body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
@Dachaser David, per the rules of the board please use correct spelling and don’t hit “post” until your sentences make more sense grammatically. Please also be sure your follow up questions are moving the conversation forward rather than simply restating previous questions and statements of the obvious.
 
De Jager said:
All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.

If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"
Click to expand...

This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.

Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.

It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.
 
Andrew35 said:
This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.

Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.

It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.
Click to expand...

The sad irony of all of that is that baptism was twisted from being a gracious source of comfort (wherein God's promises are made visible) to a point of anxiety and fear.

I remember myself, coming to some realizations around the age 24 (when I was a baptist) that perhaps at age 14 (when I was baptized) I wasn't saved. I didn't know for sure...but I doubted it. So I remember pondering whether I should get baptized again. Thankfully my dad (who is a baptist) advised against it.
 
De Jager said:
The sad irony of all of that is that baptism was twisted from being a gracious source of comfort (wherein God's promises are made visible) to a point of anxiety and fear.

I remember myself, coming to some realizations around the age 24 (when I was a baptist) that perhaps at age 14 (when I was baptized) I wasn't saved. I didn't know for sure...but I doubted it. So I remember pondering whether I should get baptized again. Thankfully my dad (who is a baptist) advised against it.
Click to expand...
There is no certain age, but the one bring baptized should know what it represents to them when done to them.
 
Andrew35 said:
This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.

Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.

It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.
Click to expand...

My baptism was never a comfort to me nor blessed to me in my Baptist days, even after having done it three times, and quite sure that I was converted prior to the third time. Assurance still wasn't the best. Glad for no repeats on the horizon. Ordinance means far, far more to me now than ever it did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top